Pacifica City Council
August 14, 2023

PROJECT SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION, AND FINDINGS
The Public Facilities (P-F) zoning district allows development standards to be determined by the Use Permit and Site Development Permit. While a portion of the site is zoned Multiple-Family Residential (R3), the work proposed within that area includes, underground utilities, flatwork, and a new trash enclosure.

ZONING STANDARDS CONFORMANCE:

Standards Existing Proposed
Lot Size (sf) 34,848 No change
Coverage 26.7% 33%
Floor Area 9,409 sf 15,882 sf
Height 19’-2” 26’-4” top of roof
35’-9” top of mechanical
equipment
Landscaping 4.9% 6.8%
Setbacks
Front 0’-0” (Brighton Road) Existing -No change
New - 2’-9”
Side (corner) 0’-0” (Francisco Boulevard) No change
Side (interior lot) 5’-1” (left/ west) No change
Rear 135’-0” (Clarendon Road) 41’-4”
Parking1 15 on-site 20 on-site2
1 Pursuant to Section 9-4.2818(f)(8) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, public utilities and public service uses require one parking space for each employee on a maximum shift, plus parking spaces equal in number to 10% of the capacity in persons of any conference and meeting room. Per the proposed number of employees and occupancy of meeting rooms and conference rooms, the site is required to have 30 off-street parking spaces. 2 The Sharp Park Specific Plan area has an established parking in-lieu fee that the project may pay into. The applicant has not proposed payment of the in-lieu parking fee. A parking exception is required with or without payment of the in-lieu parking fee.

1. Project Description
The project site consists of an existing one-story administration building, two maintenance buildings, warehouse, and various storage structures. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing administrative building and one of the maintenance buildings, and to construct a new 9,500 square-foot administrative building, construct a new 1,375 square-foot maintenance building, retrofit the existing maintenance building, construct a new wash rack, and provide new solar panel canopies over the proposed parking area (Attachment B). The resulting administrative building would be a two-story structure. The first floor would contain individual offices, a small conference room, and employee areas.

The second floor would contain individual and shared offices, file storage, a medium conference room, a 1 Packet Pg. 4

22.c
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

multi-purpose room, and exterior deck. The new maintenance building would contain a vehicle lift inside and would be next to the new open air wash rack.

Materials and colors for the existing and proposed structures would match. The proposed administrative building would use a fine sand stucco finish, as well as weathered wood siding and a concrete stem wall to create distinguished stories. The proposed administrative building also uses metal exterior finishes for windows, doors, and deck. The applicant proposes to use similar exterior enhancements on the existing maintenance structure to create a cohesive façade along Brighton Road. The proposed maintenance structure would have a metal finish with similar colors. The applicant proposes a sloped roof on the administrative building and new maintenance structure.

There are no anticipated impacts to any heritage or protected trees. The site currently has roughly 1,740 square feet of landscaping in planters along the property boundary. Landscape area along Brighton Road, the corner of Brighton Road and Francisco Boulevard, and along Clarendon Road would be maintained. The applicant proposes to add a landscape area within the site and add landscaping to the public right-of-way along the project perimeter. The proposal would increase the site landscaping by roughly 650 square feet.

In addition to the mentioned landscaping, the project design includes other off-site improvement to the surrounding public right-of-way. Along Clarendon Road, the project proposal includes a new curb cut, for a total of three (3) curb cuts, which would only be used by visitors of the recycled water refill station.

Along Francisco Boulevard, the project applicant is also proposing changes to the existing landscape planters, sidewalk, and on-street parking. The proposed changes would remove the existing 6’ wide sidewalk, construct a new 4’-6” sidewalk on the NCCWD property, install new planter areas with trees, and construct new diagonal parking on City right-of-way. The project applicant is also proposing an allway stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road.

2. General Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Land Uses
The subject site’s 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan designation is North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) and High Density Residential (HDR) and a 2040 General Plan land use designation of Public and Semi-Public (Attachment C). The 2040 General Plan contain policy LU-I-3, which states that development that requires a coastal development permit shall continue to require written findings that it is consistent the City’s certified Local Coastal Program. As the City’s 2040 Local Coastal Land Use Plan is not yet certified by the California Coastal Commission, the project must be in compliance with the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The Local Coastal Land Use Plan does not contain information regarding allowed uses in the NCCWD land use designation; however, staff has determined that the proposed use is in compliance as the use will remain the NCCWD headquarters. The HDR land use designation allows residential uses, with special considerations of site conditions to determine density. The NCCWD Headquarters is a public use that is allowed within the NCCWD and HDR land use designation.

The subject site’s location is within the P-F (Public Facility) and R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zoning district. The P-F zoning district allows government facilities, including, but not limited to, offices, storage facilities, and fire stations, with approval of a use permit and a site development permit. The portion of the project site within the R-3 zoning district will continue to be used for outdoor storage. Land uses 1 Packet Pg. 5

22.c
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

surrounding the project site include residential uses to the north and west, commercial uses to the south, and State Highway 1 to the east.

3. Municipal Code
The applicant’s proposal requires approval for four permits under the PMC. The project requires Planning Commission approval of a site development permit (PSD) prior to issuance of a building permit per PMC Section 9-4.3201(b). The project requires approval of a use permit (UP) because the use, government facility, requires a use permit under the P-F zoning district, per PMC Section 9-4.2101(b).

Approval of a coastal development permit (CDP) is required prior to issuance of a building permit due to the project site location within the City’s coastal zone and the proposed demolition and construction, per PMC Section 9-4.403(a). The parking exception (PE) is required prior to issuance of a building permit because the proposal does not provide the necessary parking required per PMC Section 9-4.2818.

4. Required Findings
A. In order to approve the subject Site Development Permit, the Planning Commission must not render any of the nine specified findings provided in PMC Section 9-4.3204(a). Based on staff’s analysis below, staff concludes that none of the specified findings can be made, thereby supporting approval of a Site Development Permit.

1.That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood.

Discussion: The project, with proposed conditions as discussed below, would not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood. The proposed project will expand and improve the existing North Coast County Water District Headquarters site. The new buildings will be in character with the existing residential and commercial development in the area because the proposed project is designed in a modern architecture style that is used on other recent projects in the area. The project design includes improvements to the outdoor yard area and vehicle access to the site. Improvements include removing a driveway from Francisco Boulevard, which improves traffic conditions on Francisco Boulevard by removing the potential for queuing to enter and cross traffic maneuvers to exit the site. As proposed, the project will add diagonal parking on Francisco Blvd and an all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road.

The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department sent a letter dated March 20, 2023 to NCCWD requesting for the angled parking to be eliminated from the project (Attachment D). The request was due to the recommendations within a Fehr & Peers peer review, and adverse impacts to multi-modal use of the public right-of-way that do not align with the City’s adopted General Plan.
1 Packet Pg. 6

22.c
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

The following traffic safety issues were identified in the Fehr & Peers peer review:
· Angled parking has a higher crash rate and frequency and should never be considered when on-street is sufficient. The City’s Sharp Park Specific Plan study of parking in the area shows adequate on-street parking in the area. · The vehicle overhang on the sidewalk from the proposed angled parking will narrow the sidewalk potentially making it impassable for a wheelchair. · Back-in parking is no feasible in the area given the proximity of the parking spaces to Clarendon Road because of conflicts between queued vehicles waiting at the stop sign and the cars backing into the angled parking. · The request for an all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road does not meet any of the necessary criteria (warrants) required by the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Fehr & Peers does not recommend a multi-stop sign at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road based on the traffic volumes, the lack of crashes at the intersection, none of the criteria required by the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices is met, and installation of a multi-way stop at this intersection may result in noncompliance by motorists traveling on Francisco Boulevard.

The proposed project design also includes adding a third driveway on Clarendon Road, two of which flank an existing bus stop. The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has identified that new proposed driveway would create a site distance hazard when a bus is parked at the designated bus stop.

The existing on-street parking abutting the project site allows six (6) spaces on Brighton Road, seven (7) spaces on Francisco Boulevard, and two (2) spaces on Clarendon for a total of 15 spaces. The proposed design of angled parking on Francisco Boulevard, closing the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard, and the addition of a third driveway on Clarendon Road, allows a total of 16 spaces along the project frontage, with parking on Brighton Road to remain as is. The net increase of one (1) on-street parking space is the result of adding three (3) more spaces on Francisco Boulevard from the angled parking reconfiguration, and the removal of two (2) spaces on Clarendon Road for the third driveway. As conditioned to prohibit angled parking on Francisco Boulevard and to prohibit a new driveway on Clarendon Road, the on-street parking totals will allow for 16 on-street spaces, the same number as proposed by the applicant. By proposing removal of the Francisco Boulevard driveway, the applicant has indicated that the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard is not necessary for NCCWD operations and thus can be removed. The City has no concerns regarding removing the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard. This will allow an additional parallel parking space to be added to Francisco Boulevard. Please see the table below for a summary of this onstreet parking information. The conditions of approval that staff recommends will allow the project site to provide the same number of on-street parking spaces as currently proposed.
1 Packet Pg. 7

22.c
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

On-Street Parking Analysis
S
t
a
f
f
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission impose Condition # 12 to prohibit angled parking and restore the curb, gutter, and sidewalk to enable parallel parking on Francisco Boulevard, Condition # 13 to prohibit all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road, and Condition # 24 to reduce the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road. Angled parking and an all-way stop would create a hazardous and inconvenient traffic situation on Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road and the third driveway will create a site distance conflict on Clarendon Road. Staff believes that with the conditions of approval, the finding cannot be made.

2.That the accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses.

Discussion: The project, as conditioned, would not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses pertaining to parking areas and traffic on adjacent streets. The proposed project will remove an existing driveway from Francisco Boulevard and direct all employee access to an existing driveway on Clarendon Road.

The existing driveway will be fitted with a new gate. The proposed off-street parking access will improve traffic on Francisco Boulevard and will not create a hazard or inconvenience. The language above and conditions imposed on the project related to on-street parking areas. For these reasons, this finding cannot be made.

3.That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas.

Discussion: The project, as conditioned, would not reserve insufficient landscaped areas for the purposes of separating or screening service or storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas. The proposed project will overall add 1 This assumes that the existing driveway on Francisco Boulevard will be removed, curb and gutter will be restored, and an additional parallel on-street parking space will be added, consistent with modifications to this driveway area as proposed by the applicant as part of the angled parking proposal.

Existing Proposed by Applicant With Conditions of
Approval1
Brighton Road 6 6 6
Francisco Boulevard 7 10 8
Clarendon Road 2 0 2
Total 15 16 16
1 Packet Pg. 8

22.c
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

roughly 650 square feet of landscaping to the project site. The project proposal will remove some existing landscape areas, while maintaining or enhancing other existing landscaping along Brighton Road and Clarendon Road. The additional landscaping will break up the existing hardscape in the parking area and will add additional buffer along the proposed public water filling station. The proposed landscaping along the project site perimeter will also enhance the public right-of-way and create a better pedestrian experience along Clarendon Road. For these reasons, this finding cannot be made.

4.That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.

Discussion: The project, as conditioned, will not unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, nor will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof. The proposed addition is located away from the existing residential use to the west. The area directly abutting the existing singlefamily residence is not proposed to be changed. The second story addition will be located on the northeastern corner of the project site along Francisco Boulevard, away from the existing single-family residence on the abutting sites, and therefore is not anticipated to hinder nor discourage the appropriate development and use of land and building in the neighborhood. The project proposes to bring an existing building into code compliance and upgrade the exterior façade and outdoor area of the project site and will therefore not impair the value of the neighborhood.

5.That the improvement of any commercial or industrial structure, as shown on the elevations as submitted, is substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area.

Discussion: The project, as conditioned, is not substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area. The proposed project elevations are a substantial improvement to the existing exterior façade of the existing public facility. The proposed building design incorporates modern architecture and uses materials and colors that are compatible with the existing neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

6.That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of this Code.

Discussion: The project, as conditioned, will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of this Code. The proposed project is located on a site within an area that is substantially developed. The site does not contain any natural features and is relatively flat. For these reasons, this finding cannot be made.
1 Packet Pg. 9

22.c
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

7.That there is insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance.

Discussion: There is not insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance. The proposed project is designed with a variety of materials and colors, as well as architectural articulation to avoid a monotonous exterior façade. Although only a portion of the existing site will be replaced, the project proposes exterior modifications to the building that will be remain and will add a decorative trellis to break up the existing blank wall plane. The proposed new administrative building will use large windows to break up the proposed facades on Brighton Avenue and Francisco Boulevard. The new administrative building also uses flat and slanted roof types for articulation of the roofline. For these reasons, this finding cannot be made.

8.That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.

Discussion: The City has adopted Design Guidelines which are intended to accomplish the following purposes:
· Ensure at least a minimum standard of design through the application of consistent policies.
· Encourage new construction which exceeds minimum standards and discourage construction which falls short of those standards.
· Provide a framework for review and evaluation of design proposals. · Implement applicable General Plan and Local Coastal Plan goals and policies. · Expedite and facilitate the planning permit process.
· Provide direction for design and redesign of projects.

The Design Guidelines are advisory in nature and, unlike zoning, do not contain explicit standards for determining strict compliance. Rather, they address significant elements of project design that, when balanced overall, result in the best possible site layout and building architecture for a project. An applicant may propose a project which complies with some but not all guidelines and the Planning Commission may still find the project consistent with the Design Guidelines. It is up to the Commission’s discretion to determine the appropriate balance and relative priority of the guidelines for a particular project when considering whether a project has achieved Design Guidelines consistency.

The proposed project complies with the following Design Guidelines:
a. Building Design: The style and design of the new buildings should be in character with that of the surrounding neighborhood. Additions to an existing structure should also retain and be consistent with the positive architectural features of the original structure.
b. Scale: An important aspect of design and compatibility is scale. A development can be out of scale with its surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, 1 Packet Pg. 10

22.c
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

or density. A structure which is out of scale with its site and neighborhood threatens the integrity of the overall streetscape, and residential projects, particularly single-family dwelling which are much larger than neighboring structures are therefore discouraged.
c. Materials: Compatibility of materials is an essential ingredient in design quality. Consistency and congruity of materials and design elements on individual structures is also important.

The West Sharp Park neighborhood contains an eclectic mix of architectural styles, containing a range from beach cottages to modern styles. The applicant proposes to use a modern architecture style that is used on other recent projects in the area. The proposed two-story office building is modest in size and scale compared to the existing structure to remain. As such, the proposed structure will maintain the existing character of the site and surrounding area. The proposed structures are not massive or bulky and the materials, colors design and architectural features will match and therefore be compatible with the existing structure. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to use similar color and materials to integrate the proposed mechanical equipment, at a height of 35’9”, into the building design. The height of the proposed mechanical equipment does exceed to maximum allowance of a commercial district; however, the PMC Section 9-4.2501 allows mechanical appurtenance to exceed the height limits with the approval of a site development permit. Staff believes that proposed height is in scale with the proposed structure and other site improvements. For these reasons, the proposed project is consistent with the Design Guidelines and this finding cannot be made.

9.That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.

Discussion: The subject site’s 1980 Local Coastal Plan land use designation General Plan land use designation are North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) and High Density Residential (HDR) and a 2040 General Plan land use designation of Public and SemiPublic. The 2040 General Plan contain policy LU-I-3, which states that development that requires a coastal development permit shall continue to require written findings that it is consistent the City’s certified Local Coastal Program. As the City’s 2040 Local Coastal Land Use Plan is not yet certified by the California Coastal Commission, the project must be in compliance with the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

The HDR land use designation permits residential uses. Neither the 1980 Local Costal Land Use Plan nor the 1980 General Plan contain a description of land uses allowed in the NCCWD land use designation; however, staff has determined that it allows the North Coast County Water District use and other similar public facilities.

However, the City’s 1980 General Plan Circulation Element states that City should encourage alternatives to automobile transportation and that safety shall be a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulation. As currently proposed, the project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element as the three (3) driveways on Clarendon Road, angled parking on Francisco Boulevard, and all-way stop at 1 Packet Pg. 11

22.c
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road are traffic safety concerns in the opinion of the City Engineer that have not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission impose Condition # 12 to prohibit angled parking and restore the curb, gutter, and sidewalk to enable parallel parking on Francisco Boulevard, Condition # 13 to prohibit all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road, and Condition # 24 to reduce the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road. Angled parking and an all-way stop would create a hazardous and inconvenient traffic situation on Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road and the third driveway will create a site distance conflict on Clarendon Road. Staff believes that with the conditions of approval, the finding cannot be made. Staff believes that with the conditions of approval, the project will be consistent with General Plan.

According to available records, the project site is not a single legally created lot and contains a lot that was most likely intended for a single-family residence and is zoned R3. The NCCWD has used both of these lots for many years and the current proposal contains improvements that would cross legal property lines but be within the NCCWD site. Staff does not have any concerns regarding the existing property lines. Any building and fire code requirements related to distance to property lines will be addressed during the building permit review. The R-3 district portion of the site will continue to be used for outdoor storage and site access for NCCWD. The R-3 zoning district does not contain any language regarding outdoor storage; however, there are other uses, such as churches, parks, and crop and tree farming, allowed in residential districts that often require outdoor storage of materials. Furthermore, this area of the site will be continued to be used in the same manner as it has historically been used. The proposed project is consistent with the present use of this portion of the site.

PMC Section 9-4.2102 contains criteria that shall be considered in the review of proposed projects in the P-F district. That criteria states that the proposed use shall be of such size, design, and operating characteristics as will make it compatible with surrounding uses with respect to bulk, scale, design, coverage, density, noise, the generation of traffic, and other environmental impacts; will enhance the successful operations of the community or will provide a service to the community; and attention shall be given to provision of buffering of uses from the surrounding neighborhood, and significant adverse impacts shall be mitigated. While reviewing the project, staff considered this criteria, computability with surrounding uses is discussed in more detail in the findings #8 above. The proposed project will provide a service to the community by continuing to provide adequate water service to the City. As mentioned above, a portion of the site abutting a residential use will continue to be used for outdoor storage and vehicle access for the rest of the site and all improved areas, such as the shop area, will be buffered from the existing residential use.

As noted in the Table 1 of this staff report, the addition would meet all applicable zoning development regulations, except parking which is discussed below and height as discussed above. Additionally, the findings for Local Coastal Plan consistency are included below, and incorporated herein by reference.
1 Packet Pg. 12

22.c
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

Based on the foregoing analysis, none of the findings can be rendered, and supports approval of a site development permit.

B. In order to approve the subject Coastal Development Permit, the Planning Commission must make the two findings indicated by PMC sec. 9-4.4304(k). The following discussion supports the Commission’s determination that none of the following findings can be made.

1. That the proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

Discussion: The certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) includes a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP), which contains policies to further the City’s coastal planning activities. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies of the LCLUP, as discussed below. · Coastal Act Policy No. 24: The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by:
o (a) Facilitating the provision or extension of transit service. o (d) Providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation.

The applicant’s proposal to add a third driveway on Clarendon Road impacts the existing bus stop. The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has identified that new proposed driveway would create a site distance hazard when a bus is parked at the designated bus stop. SamTrans has also expressed concerned regarding servicing the bus stop between two driveways and the additional curb extension at the intersection, which may make it difficult for SamTrans’ buses to get parallel with the curb. There is also no immediate suitable location to relocate the bus stop on Clarendon Road.

As further discussed below, the project design does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces. The project design does not comply with Coastal Policy No. 24(d), in that it does not provide adequate parking facilities off-street and it creates a potentially hazardous and inconvenient situation for the existing public transportation service that is provided. Furthermore, removal of the Francisco Boulevard driveway and restoration of sidewalk, curb, and gutter is necessary to enable additional on-street parallel parking to provide adequate parking facilities that maintain and enhance public access to the coast.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission impose Condition # 24 to reduce the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road. Staff believes that with the condition of approval, public transit will continue to be provided in this area and the finding can be made. In addition, imposing Condition # 12 will ensure sufficient onstreet parking facilities are provided to maintain and enhance public access to the coast. · Coastal Act Policy No. 26: New development shall:
1 Packet Pg. 13

22.c
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

o (a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazards.
o (d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled.

The applicant proposes to demolition portions of the existing North Coast County Water District’s Headquarter, construct a new administrative building, construct a new maintenance building, and retrofit the existing buildings proposed to remain. The proposed improvements will minimize the risk to life and property because they will bring the building into compliance with new regulations pertaining to safety and building codes. The modernizations will also include meeting new energy codes, which will reduce the existing energy consumption on site. As such, the proposed project is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

Additionally, the City’s certified Local Coastal Program includes an Implementation Plan (IP) to implement the policies contained in the LCLUP. The IP generally consists of the City’s zoning provisions and other PMC provisions relating to the regulation of development and coastal resources protection. As summarized in the Zoning Conformance Table above, in the project description, the proposed project would comply with applicable requirements except for parking and height. The project includes a parking exception, as discussed below, and the project may exceed the height requirement with approval of site development permit, as discussed above.

2. Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

Discussion: The project site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline. Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

C. In order to approve the subject Use Permit, the Planning Commission must make the three findings indicated by PMC sec. 9-4.3303. The following discussion supports the Commission’s determination that the following findings can be made.

1. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstance of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

Discussion: The proposed use is an office use and related corporate yard for the North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) headquarters site. The site is currently used for the same purpose and the only additional office use related to the project is the addition of a multipurpose room. The proposed upgrades to the site will bring the building up to code requirements, include safety and energy standards. The updates to the NCCWD headquarters will also ensure that the water district is able to provide adequate water service to the City. However, as previously mentioned, staff believes that off-site improvements, such as moving the public sidewalk onto private property, angled parking along Francisco Boulevard and in the City’s public right-of-way, and addition of third driveway along Clarendon Road will be detrimental to safety of persons residing or working 1 Packet Pg. 14

22.c
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

in the neighborhood by creating unnecessary traffic and pedestrian hazards. The proposed off-site improvements along Francisco Boulevard will also be detrimental to the general welfare of the City as the improvements do not align with the City’s right-of-way uses and multi-modal goals of the City. The addition of the third driveway on Clarendon Road will also impact bus service to people residing and working in the area that relay on public transit.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission impose Condition # 12 to prohibit angled parking and restore the curb, gutter, and sidewalk to enable parallel parking on Francisco Boulevard, Condition # 13 to prohibit all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road, and Condition # 24 to reduce the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road.

Angled parking and an all-way stop would create a hazardous and inconvenient traffic situation on Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road and the third driveway will create a site distance conflict on Clarendon Road. Staff believes that with the conditions of approval, the finding cannot be made.

Adjacent to the project site is one parking space that is part of the City’s Temporary Safe Parking Program (TSPP). The space is located on the west side of Francisco Boulevard in the public right-of-way near the intersection with Clarendon Road. Construction noise, vibration, and other impacts from construction of the project could adversely affect the occupant of the TSPP vehicle utilizing the space at the time of construction. In addition, the applicant has indicated to staff that pre-construction activities and utilities work may require access near to or within the TSPP space. Therefore, staff has included a condition of approval to require that the applicant obtain City approval of an alternative location for the TSPP space prior to any construction activity or pre-construction activity that requires access to the space. With inclusion of this condition of approval, the Planning Commission can make the finding that the project would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

2. That the use or building applied for is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City and, where applicable, the local Coastal Plan.

Discussion: As previously discussed in the findings for approval of a site development permit and coastal development permit, the site has a LCLUP designation of North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) and High Density Residential (HDR). Staff has determined that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the NCCWD land use designation as it appears that the site was specifically designated for the intended use. However, the City’s 1980 General Plan Circulation Element states that City should encourage alternatives to automobile transportation and that safety shall be a primary objective in street planning and traffic regulation. As currently proposed, the project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element as the three (3) driveways on Clarendon Road, angled parking on Francisco Boulevard, and all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road are clear traffic safety concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission impose Condition # 12 to prohibit angled parking and restore the curb, gutter, and sidewalk to enable parallel parking on Francisco Boulevard, Condition # 13 to prohibit all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road, and Condition # 24 to reduce the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road.

Angled parking and an all-way stop would create a hazardous and inconvenient traffic 1 Packet Pg. 15

22.c
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

situation on Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road and the third driveway will create a site distance conflict on Clarendon Road. Staff believes that with the conditions of approval, the project will be consistent with General Plan.

As noted in the Table 1 of this staff report, the addition would meet all applicable zoning development regulations, except for parking and height. There is language regarding other applicable laws in the findings for a site development permit above. Additionally, the findings for the Local Coastal Plan are above.

3. Where applicable, that the use or building applied for is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.

Discussion: The proposed office use is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines as discussed above in the findings for approval of a site development permit.

D. In order to approve the subject parking exception, the Planning Commission must be able to the finding indicated by PMC sec 9-4.2824(a). The following discussion supports the Commission’s determination that the following finding can be made.

1. That the establishment, maintenance, and/or conducting of the off-street parking facilities as proposed are as nearly in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 28 of PMC as are reasonably possible.

Discussion: Per PMC sec. 9-4.2818(f)(8), the site is required to provide a total of 30 off-street parking spaces on-site. The project is designed to provide 20 off-street parking spaces onsite that will be for employees only, an increase of 5 spaces from the existing condition.

However, the site is unable to accommodate all of the off-street parking required for the proposed use.

NCCWD has stated that in order to maintain safe operations within the corporation yard and the security of NCCWD’s critical utility facilities, public parking will not be allowed on-site.

The critical nature of NCCWD’s services as a public utility presents a unique circumstance where excluding public parking at its facilities is justified for public health, welfare, and safety. In addition, the project site is constrained by its existing built condition, existing dimensions, and existing development and public rights-of-way on all sides. Therefore, there is no opportunity to provide additional off-street parking facilities and in particular, appropriately located public parking facilities located outside of NCCWD’s operations area.

For these reasons, the provision of 20 off-street parking spaces (an increase of 5 spaces from the existing conditions) will result in the establishment, maintenance, and conducting of the off-street parking facilities as nearly in compliance with the requirements of Article 28 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the PMC as are reasonably possible.

5. CEQA Recommendation
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15051(a) provides criteria for identifying the Lead Agency when more than one public agency is involved with a project. The section states that the public agency that will carry out the project shall be the Lead Agency. NCCWD will carry out the project, and therefore NCCWD appropriately identified themselves as the Lead Agency for purposes of 1 Packet Pg. 16

22.c
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

performing environmental review as required by the CEQA. The City of Pacifica, due to its role in considering a discretionary permit is acting as a Responsible Agency as called for in Section 15050(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. As a responsible agency for this project, the City must consider the environmental determination of the Lead Agency and reach its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved [CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(a)]. The NCCWD, acting as the lead agency under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that the proposed project qualifies for a categorical exemption from CEQA and filed a Notice of Exemption with the County of San Mateo on April 28, 2023 (Attachment E).

The project qualifies as a Class 1 and Class 2 exemption provided in Section 15301 and 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities). Section 15301 states in part:

Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use.

Examples include but are not limited to:
* * * * *
(d) Restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety, unless it is determined that the damage was substantial and resulted from an environmental hazard such as an earthquake, landslide, or flood.

The proposed project would enhance the existing NCCWD headquarters site which does not meet current federal laws and had access issues. The buildings would be upgraded to meet current structural codes and would meet safety standards, including for a seismic event. The upgrades would help the site achieve current public health and safety regulations and therefore meets the criteria of a Class 1 exemption.

Section 15302 states in part:

Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structures replaced, including but not limited to:
(b) Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity.

The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing administrative building and a maintenance building and construction of a new two-story office building in the same location. The applicant states that although the administrative building will be expanded by square footage, the overall capacity and purpose will not change and therefore meets the criteria of a Class 2 exemption. 1 Packet Pg. 17

22.c
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

Additionally, none of the exceptions to application of a categorical exemption in section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines would apply:
· Sec. 15300.2(a): This exception is not applicable to a Class 1 and Class 2 exemption. · Sec. 15300.2(b): There is no evidence in the record that cumulative projects of the same type would occur within the same place to create a significant cumulative impact. · Sec. 15300.2(c): There is no evidence that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
· Sec. 15300.2(d) through (f): The project is not proposed near an officially designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and, does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this project.

Therefore, the project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 1 and Class 2 exemption and none of the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 apply; there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

6. Staff Analysis
As proposed by the applicant, the project will comply with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Local Coastal Program (upon approval of a parking exception for off-street parking facilities). However, the off-site improvements, specifically the number of driveways on Clarendon Road, angled parking on Francisco Boulevard, and all-way stop sign on Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road, would conflict with General Plan policies for safety and circulation and would not meet the required findings per the Zoning Ordinance; in addition, the City Engineer has determined in his professional engineering opinion that these improvements would result in an unsafe condition in the public right-of-way. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project with the following conditions of approval: Condition #12 to prohibit angled parking and restore the curb, gutter, and sidewalk to enable parallel parking on Francisco Boulevard, Condition #13 to prohibit all-way stop at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road, and Condition #24 to reduce the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road.

The recommended conditions of approval will ensure that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Local Coastal Program. Additionally, the project could adversely impact occupants of the TSPP space on Francisco Boulevard and recommends a condition of approval to address this circumstance.

With the conditions of approval recommended by staff, staff recommends approval of the project.

COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION FOR APPROVAL:

Move that the Planning Commission FINDS the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; APPROVES Site Development Permit PSD-857-22, Coastal Development Project CDP 435-22, 1 Packet Pg. 18

22.c
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) PC Staff Report
NCCWD HQ Project 06132023
June 13, 2023

Use Permit UP-130-22, and Parking Exception PE-194-22 by adopting the attached resolution, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A; and, incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment B - Project Plans (PDF)
Attachment C - Land Use and Zoning Exhibit (DOCX)
Attachment D - Letter from City of Pacifica Public Works re Proposed Angled Parking dated March 20, 2023 (PDF)
Attachment E - CEQA Final Posting Confirmation (PDF)
Attachment F - Public Comments (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 19

22.c
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Report from June 13, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFICA
PLANNING COMMISSION June 13, 2023

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
2212 BEACH BOULEVARD 7:00 p.m.

Chair Hauser called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Devine, Berman, Leal, Godwin, Wright and Chair Hauser

Absent: Commissioner Ferguson
Chair Hauser stated that Commissioner Devine is participating remotely. She asked her to confirm that she is participating remotely under AB2449 because of a contagious illness preventing her from attending in person.

Commissioner Devine confirmed that.

Chair Hauser stated that she is also required to identify any other individual, 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location from where she is calling and identifying the general relationship she has with any of the individuals physically present in her location.

Commissioner Devine stated that she is alone in her office, but her husband and two children are in another part of the house.

Chair Hauser stated that all votes will be by roll call due to Commissioner Devine’s remote participation.

SALUTE TO FLAG: Led by Commissioner Godwin
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Murdock
Asst. City Attorney Sharma
Sr. Planner Cervantes
Asst. Planner Snodgrass
PW Dep. Director-City Engineer Yip
Chair Hauser invited the public to comment on order of agenda and, seeing no one, asked for approval of order of agenda.

APPROVAL OF ORDER Commissioner Wright moved approval of the Order OF AGENDA of Agenda; Commissioner Godwin seconded the motion.

Planning Director Murdock took a verbal roll call.

The motion carried 6-0.

Ayes: Commissioners Devine, Berman, Leal, Godwin, Wright and Chair Hauser
Noes: None

22.d
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Chair Hauser stated that they have a process because of conflicts of interest, and asked any commissioner with a conflict of interest to state the conflict for the record.

Commissioner Berman stated she has a financial conflict of interest due to her company’s involvement with the project.

Commissioner Leal stated he has a financial conflict of interest due to ownership of real property within the vicinity of this project.

Chair Hauser stated that she has a financial conflict due to her financial interest at City Vendors as the Executive Vice President and partner and there is a nexus between the decisions of the Planning Commission and the income she receives from her employer and, while not a source of income, under the political reform act, her husband is a board member for NCCWD, the applicant, through which he receives compensation.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that Commissioner Ferguson had a locational conflict located within 500 feet of the project location.

Chair Hauser stated that four Planning Commissioners have financial conflicts of interest that prevent them from participating in the public hearing and the conflicts of interest would prevent the commission from having a quorum to act on the proposed project, therefore, it is necessary to elect one commissioner among the four with conflicts of interest to participate so the Commission may have a quorum. One commissioner’s participation is legally required under the political reform act. She stated that staff has prepared a slip of paper with the names of commissioners Berman, Ferguson, Hauser and Leal and has placed them in the vessel at the staff table. Staff will mix these slips of paper and randomly select a commissioner to participate in the public hearing.

Sr. Planner Cervantes selected slip of paper with Commissioner Berman’s name.

Chair Hauser stated that Commissioner Berman has been selected randomly to participate in tonight’s public hearing. She thanked the other commissioners for attending this evening and they can depart Council Chambers so they can proceed with the meeting.

Chair Hauser and Commissioner Leal left the dais. Planning Director Murdock explained that due to the fact that neither Chair Hauser or Vice Chair Leal have been selected to participate in tonight’s hearing, the Commission must make a motion to select a chair to lead the remainder of the meeting. He asked them to make a motion to nominate one of the remaining commissioners to serve a chair so they can proceed to the public hearing.

Commissioner Berman moved that Commissioner Wright serves as the chair during this meeting; Commissioner Godwin seconded the motion.

Planning Director Murdock took a verbal roll call.

The motion carried 3-0-1.

Ayes: Commissioners Devine, Berman, and Godwin.

Noes: None
Abstain: Commissioner Wright

22.d
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Planning Director Murdock stated he can read the agenda item title while Acting Chair Wright prepares to run the meeting.

22.d
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. PSD-857-22 File No. 2022-0007 – Site Development Permit PSD-857-22, CDP-435-22 Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Use Permit UP-130-22 UP-130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22, for demolition PE-194-22 and replacement of portions of the existing North Coast County Water District Headquarters site, and construction of a new twostory administrative building and other site improvements on an approximately 0.8-acre site located at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN-016-322-230).

Recommended CEQA Action: North Coast County Water District, acting as lead agency, has determined the project is categorically exempt from CEQA as a Class 1 Exemption, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Class 2 Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction).

Acting Chair Wright asked for directions on the process for him.

Planning Director Murdock stated that staff provided the script with the required steps, and asked if he has it in front of him.

Acting Chair Wright responded affirmatively.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they read Item #1 and the next item, #2, he requests disclosure of any ex parte communication by any participating commissioners.

Acting Chair Wright requested reporting of any ex parte communications by any commissioners.

He stated that he spoke with Planning Director Murdock at length as well as Sue Vaterlaus but that is the extent of it.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma concluded that there are no ex parte communications to report, and next is the staff report presentation.

Acting Chair Wright asked for the staff report.

Sr. Planner Cervantes began the staff report.

PW Dep. Director-City Engineer Yip completed the staff report.

Acting Chair Wright asked Commissioner Devine to raise their hand if they have a question.

Planning Director Murdock asked if he had the ability to see her.

Acting Chair Wright responded affirmatively. He had a question for legal counsel, stating as there are only four commissioners voting, he assumes that the potential conflict of interest influencing voting was more important than the fact that the water department

22.d
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

has to have 75% approval to get it to passed as opposed to having five commissioners when they would only need 60%. He asked if that is the overriding principle.

Asst. City Attorney wanted to understand his question correctly.

Acting Chair Wright stated that, if they have five commissioners, to get a majority then need 3 which is 60%. If they have four commissioners, they still need 3 for approval and that is 75%, so it is higher bar for them and he thought it was a little unfair to them and he wondered if the conflict trumps the fairness, which is the way he is reading it. He asked if that is the idea.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that the number of votes needed to make a decision at this night would require a majority of those present and able to vote, and the situation, in order to make sure the item is heard they need a quorum and she doesn’t see it as a matter of fairness, as it would be unfair for the matter to not be heard.

Acting Chair Wright understood and he asked if it was staff’s opinion that asking for the diagonal parking, the Water Department’s concept was that they were going to take away two parking spots by adding the additional driveway and this was an attempt by their architects and staff to replace those and it was actually good will that made them to desire to not impact the community in an adverse way in terms of parking. He stated that it seemed to him that was their attempt based on what he sees.

Sr. Planner Cervantes asked him to rephrase the question.

Acting Chair Wright stated that it seems that they were trying to replace the parking spots that they were taking away and he asked if that was the way staff perceived their request for diagonal parking.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that, in the project materials, the applicant never explicitly stated the reason for increasing the on-street parking. It was staff’s interpretation that they want to create as much parking on their vicinity as possible and they found diagonal parking as a solution to providing more parking spaces in their vicinity.

Planning Director Murdock added that, as compared to the project conditioned by staff and recommended to the Commission, the project would not result in a net increase in spaces compared to the conditioned proposal from staff, and in any case, it would be a net increase of one space and there are tradeoffs as staff has explained in terms of safety, right of way management, etc. If the Commission were to support the angled parking proposal as further detailed by Dep. Director Yip.

Acting Chair Wright stated that what he is hearing is that both sides are trying to consider the public good, and he was glad to hear that.

22.d
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Commissioner Godwin had a related question. His recollection from reading the earlier reports is this project requires 30 parking spaces and there were a couple of ways to accommodate those, either provide the 30 parking spaces as off site or off-street parking in the design, pay an in lieu fee for any parking spaces that they are unable to provide in their design so the total of parking spaces and in lieu fee payments total 30 spaces, or another alternative is that they could use parking stackers that are more common in Europe and the east coast and have much fewer parking spaces but accommodate the 30 cars with some mix of service and parking stacking spaces or ask the city for a zoning variance and develop some on street parking which is the option the applicant selected.

He asked if that is a correct assessment of where we are at this point.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was largely correct, and they would call what he described as a zoning variance as a parking exception, a specific type of approval that the city can grant when, due to unusual circumstances, an applicant cannot meet the full off street parking requirements of the zoning code. He noted that the applicant has proposed to increase the off-street parking by five spaces from 15 to 20 with their proposal which is a significant improvement proportionally. However, it is still a significant number of spaces short, 10 spaces, from the required off-street parking should be according to the zoning code.

Commissioner Godwin wanted to be sure the problem was framed in his mind correctly.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, clearly there is no allowance in staff’s opinion, in the zoning code, to count on-street spaces towards off-street parking requirements as they are separate issues, one a zoning requirement for off-street parking related to a use and the other more generally a convenience factor or, in the coastal zone, a visitor serving component so people can access the coast and park for free on public streets so it is apples and oranges as they are talking about parking numbers between off-street and onstreet.

Commissioner Godwin stated that is not part of the solution and just saying they want a zoning variance and diagonal parking, and an unrelated but similar thing, if the city chose to make these angled street parking changes, there would be some reason to argue that the project could be done successfully with fewer off-street parking but, as he said apples and oranges, two different things.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they are apples and oranges from a zoning compliance standpoint.

Commissioner Godwin stated that is what he thought and why this question is interesting.

Planning Director Murdock understood that at some qualitative level, a user of a private development site, such as the Water District project, might use on-street parking and that is understood, but it cannot be counted towards compliance for the off-street parking requirements as that is the critical issue.

22.d
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Commissioner Godwin thinks he understands the problem.

Commissioner Devine hoped that staff could address the TSPP spot as she didn’t hear anything about that. She would like to hear if there are plans from staff on how to address this.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that she would see in the staff report that it is referenced as temporary safe street parking in the analysis and the findings for the project and there is a condition of approval that states that the parking space does need to be relocated.

Commissioner Devine understood and asked what the process was for doing that and how realistic is it.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the course of reviewing the project, in discussing the mechanics of constructing the project with the Water District, they determined that the project would likely have an impact on the occupants of the space and it wouldn’t be possible for them to physically remain there due to some of the construction related components, and with the conditions structured from staff in the draft resolution, the Water District would need to identify an alternative space and propose that to the City Manager to ensure that where ever that alternative space ends up being at the time it is needed is suitable to the city in terms of its form, location and the overall temporary safe parking program requirements and operational components. They don’t have an alternative space identified now, and don’t know precisely when it will be needed relative to the Water District’s construction if the project’s approved, but there is a process for the city to review and participate in that relocation decision.

Commissioner Devine asked if that generally needs to be along the boundaries of their parcel.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there is no specific locational requirement relative to the project site or properties boundaries.

Acting Chair Wright wondered if staff could speak to what the Walgreen’s experience is with the diagonal parking there so they can have some historical real-life data as it is on pretty much the same street.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that staff did look into some other locations throughout the city, including Walgreen’s, and the angled parking there, and they were unable to determine the exact time that it was approved. They know the angled parking existed in that general area prior to the Walgreen’s being approved at that site. One thing that is quite different from the Walgreen’s location and what is being proposed now is that Walgreen’s area is a commercial area and it is used for a multitude of different businesses in that area. She knows the engineering team can probably speak more about some of the

22.d
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

safety conflicts that exist at that location now. She stated that is one of the reasons why staff has concerns regarding safety of proposing new angled parking throughout the city.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated, within PW engineering, they receive calls regarding the angled parking along and in front of Walgreen’s occasionally. Speaking of the risks with angled parking, it is probably most comparable on Palmetto compared to Francisco in terms of the type of street as this is an arterial. He stated that the draft local roadway safety plan that the city is currently working on is close to ready to be brought to Council for adoption. It identifies several streets in the city as in the high injured network of our streets have a higher risk of collisions and results in serious injuries or fatalities. One of the streets on the high injury network is Palmetto and Palmetto in front of Walgreen’s has these angled parking being proposed. In terms of Francisco, it is not currently on the high injury network at the moment.

Acting Chair Wright asked if he happened to know the width of the Walgreens spaces, as he finds them extremely tight and how does it compared to the width of what is being proposed.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated he didn’t know that number off the top of his head, but he thought it would be similar.

Acting Chair Wright asked if he was correct regarding a comment he read that a consideration for moving the bus stop would actually offer inclement weather shelter in the new location.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that staff met with Adrianne Carr from the Water District yesterday and SamTrans and looked at available options for relocating a bus stop. One proposed was directly underneath the highway overpass and there is some shelter there.

As mentioned in the Water District’s letter, this is pending Caltrans approval because anything beneath the highway is Caltrans right-of-way. If they were to relocate there, they would need Caltrans approval for that.

Planning Director Murdock stated, having identified that alternative as recently as yesterday, there are a number of factors that need to be evaluated and, as mentioned in PW Dep. Director Yip’s presentation, if the Commission were so inclined to allow the new driveway which would result in a relocation of the bus stop, there would need to be a thoughtful review and approval by the city engineer once those additional factors are more carefully considered.

Acting Chair Wright stated, if they are going to do all those considerations, it sounds like it may be a good idea either way and if they are going to do all the work, there might as well be benefit out of it regardless of the outcome of this meeting. He appreciated the thoroughness on staff’s part.

22.d
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Commissioner Godwin noted reversed angle parking spaces appear to be safer than head in angle parking spaces, and he is asking the City Engineer if any of his opinions would change if he had a back in type reverse angle parking spaces versus a head in space.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they did look into a back in angle parking spaces as part of their review to see if back in parking spaces would have better visibility if they were to put bike lanes next to them and it was correct, and they have better visibility when pulling out onto oncoming traffic. He stated that, when you reconfigure with back in parking, you will not be able to get as many parking spaces as you would with the ones backing out, and they would potentially lose a space due to the location of the stop sign and the proximity of the first space, they have some visuals to show that later on. He thought it would be helpful to see a visual as they put some effort in putting some visuals together as they explored this option. He was trying to illustrate the vehicle attempting to back into the first spot. In order to do that, you have to pass the cross walk striping and it is not as straight forward as backing into parallel parking as people tend to know you are right next to a sport and backing into it. In this location, as you pass the crosswalk striping, the vehicles behind you will likely move preventing you from being able to park into that first space. That was a conflict that was brought up in the Fehr & Peers report.

He stated that Francisco is an arterial as he mentioned and a lot of traffic, if it starts backing up on the highway, a lot of GPS’s will redirect them onto Francisco which they have seen on certain weekends when it gets very busy and this could be a potential congestion conflict. Another issue is the compliance, and backing into parking spaces are relatively new, on a street in San Francisco and you can see that people may park front first, and in this they have reached a yellow line in order to enter this parking space and if this were to happen on Francisco, they will be attempting to back out onto an arterial street. He stated that there could be delineators to prevent that, but it could be hit. There is a maintenance for the short staff services team and overall there is maintenance for future slurry, researches and projects as well.

Acting Chair Wright stated he did not have the visual of Commissioner Devine. He then asked if she had any questions.

Commissioner Devine stated that she had a question regarding the third driveway. She understands that, without some sort of redesign, this would not occur. She understands it is a condition of approval but what would need to happen to ensure, such as a redesign, and asked if someone can clear it up for her.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that staff’s preference would be a redesign of that driveway area in order to be able to better accommodate the proposed water refill station with two driveways.

Acting Chair Wright asked if there were further questions, and seeing none, he opened up for public comment.

Planning Director Murdock asked if he was opening the public hearing.

22.d
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Acting Chair Wright responded affirmatively.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he needs to get the applicant situated and take care of some technological adjustments.

Acting Chair Wright saw some cards.

Planning Director Murdock stated they were ready when Dr. Carr was ready.

Adrianne Carr, Ph.D., applicant, asked if she can start first before she introduces her team.

Planning Director Murdock stated that she has ten minutes for the applicant presentation.

Dr. Carr understood including introducing her team.

Planning Director Murdock stated that she will have three minutes for a rebuttal after the general public comment.

Dr. Carr stated she had her team with her, Director Anne De Jarnatt, Vice-President Joshua Cosgrove, Director Ron Ash, Attorney Pat Niaki, President Jack Burgett, architects Amy Watson and Scott Valli, who are all present to answer any questions. They have Nat Levine, traffic engineer on the phone, and Vivien Yu on Zoom and Robin Berrell from Hanson Bridget to answer questions. She thought their Director William Hauser is participating by Zoom and a former board president and director of 28 years, Tom Piccollotti. She then began her presentation.

Acting Chair Wright stated he cannot see Commissioner Devine and asked if he was supposed to.

Planning Director Murdock didn’t know if they have the ability to show her during the actual slide presentation but they can bring her up once the presentation is completed.

Dr. Carr continued her presentation, giving details of their background since before the city was incorporated and their goals then and now, explaining that the present facility is aging and undersized and their future plans for their new facility, ensuring water safety for all citizens. She then turned it over to Vice President Cosgrove.

Vice President Cosgrove completed the presentation by explaining that they have a vision and they urge the Commission to approve that vision.

Acting Chair Wright opened public comment.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated he was asking the Commission to approve the resolution conditionally, Nos. 12, 13, 24, temporary safe parking program, and shared his thoughts and concerns on all of them.

John Keener, Pacifica, thanked the Commissioners for serving, and was speaking in favor of the new headquarters, and shared his thoughts and concerns on several conditions.

22.d
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Christine Fuller, Daly City, stated she was speaking on behalf of her family and friends who live in Pacifica. She is in favor of this development project to move forward, and shared her thoughts on the project.

Tom Piccollotti, Pacifica, stated he was in support of the project as submitted, and shared his thoughts on this project regarding the importance of their goals.

Curt Kiest, Pacifica, stated that he values their recycled water program, and he gave his thoughts on the plus for this expanded facility and requested the deletion of Condition No. 24.

Jack Burgett, Pacifica, thanked everyone for listening and supporting this project which he also supported. He then shared his thoughts as a member of Pacifica on the various aspects of this project.

Asst. Planner Snodgrass introduced the call-in speakers.

Brent Turner, Pacifica, stated he supported the project as designed, and shared his thoughts on several issues.

Steven Poggi, Pacifica, stated he uses the recycle refill station, and he supports this project.

Acting Chair Wright asked if they should give the applicant their three minutes for rebuttal now or after commissioner questions.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they should allow them their three minutes for rebuttal before entering into Commission questions.

Jennifer Barba, Pacifica, stated she was in total support of this project that the water district is trying to push forward, and shared her thoughts on the project.

Acting Chair Wright opened the three-minute rebuttal period for the Applicant.

Vice President Cosgrove thanked them for this opportunity to provide a vision of the water district headquarters. He stated that it is important to reach out to the community which they have done. He was baffled by city staff’s response to this process and stated that in his 30-year career in local government, he hasn’t seen this happen. One speaker stated that they were being treated like an out of town developer and that is how it feels to him. They represent the city and safety is of the highest importance. He stated that the third driveway is critical to this project. He stated that, as mentioned, the board members have a duty to the residents of Pacifica and their safety and protection was their priority and what they did. They are happy to answer any questions they have. He urged them to approve the vision they have brought forth. He stated that obstructions cost money and the project will get more expensive to the residents if it continues to be delayed.

Planning Director Murdock shared many of the sentiments of the Water District as an applicant as it is an exciting project and an opportunity to modernize their facility which provides a critical service to the community to improve safety for their staff and customers. He stated that it is a significant improvement of the onsite improvements, and it is only limited to the narrow issues in the public right of way where it affects the public where the city has concerns and they expressed

22.d
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

those with their expert analysis and opinion, and they thought there was a reasonable way forward with respect to the bus stop location and driveway, and he has some ideas on that when the Commission wants to explore that. They feel strongly with respect to the angle parking proposal and the overall right of way and considerations that it presents and staff hopes the Commission understands from staff’s perspective.

Acting Chair Wright asked if it was appropriate to close public comment at this time.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma responded affirmatively.

Acting Chair Wright closed public comment, and asked if it is time for Commission questions of both applicant and staff.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma responded affirmatively.

Commissioner Devine stated this has been a huge lift on the applicant’s part and on staff and she thanked them both for their incredibly thorough material and expertise and their patience. She stated that one thing is troubling her, i.e., their former city engineer, Mr. Bautista, felt that the diagonal parking would be a positive addition and lends the Commission and staff into inconsistent messaging which she believes erodes public trust. She asked applicant if their traffic expert could come up and talk about the positive benefits of the diagonal parking in juxtaposition to what staff has said earlier. She wants to try to understand this from both staff’s and applicant’s perspective.

Acting Chair Wright asked if it was possible for that person to be heard.

Planning Director Murdock asked their traffic engineer, Nat Levine, to unmute himself and come on camera.

Engineer Levine stated they have done some analysis for the operations of the parking stalls. He thought her question is well intended and he wants to give the district the opportunity to talk about the overall benefit. From the minutiae points they keep saying about safety and parking, he thought it was an interesting situation, where they hear arguments from one side and points they hear other arguments and points from the other side, and it does feel like they are talking past each other instead of together. He stated, as far as safety, the Fehr and Peers study cites a study from the Oregon DOT prepared in 2000, they use data from Nebraska and Midwest cities from 1990 and 1980 and explain that, when there is sufficient parking in an area, you shouldn’t be looking to diagonal parking and parallel parking is preferred in those cases for safety. He isn’t refuting those issues as there is old data there, but there are safety concerns. However, he doesn’t believe there is any conclusion on the aspect of sufficient parking. The Sharp Park Specific Plan that was referenced by staff talks about there is sufficient parking and the Sharp Park Specific Plan only talks about what is called occupancy, and they counted how many cars were on the block and didn’t look at what is called capacity and they say they have seven spots and there are two cars in there therefore they have 2 out of 7 and that is a capacity, and they just said there is two cars. It doesn’t go into capacity and making the statement that they have sufficient parking.

He can’t say if it is true or not as they don’t have the data and that Specific Plan doesn’t go into it.

He stated that it goes back to the safety of this claim that staff is making that it is unsafe. He isn’t going to argue about what AASHTO comes up with or about how there is bike interaction with cars trying to pull in or out of diagonal stalls, but there is no class 2 or bike lane facility here and

22.d
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

it isn’t identified as a bike corridor so they can’t get into that detail. He wants to focus on the overall safety about parking occupancy which he thinks is so important to everyone in the community as well as for this project and it is what are they trying to do and how are they impacting either occupancy or capacity and they don’t have that capacity data. He will now hand it back to the district to talk more about the overall benefit of the diagonal parking.

Dr. Carr stated that the diagonal parking will benefit the access that their customers have to their headquarters. There is a shortage of parking along Francisco and this will add spaces along Francisco for not only their customers but people who come to their board meetings or other events. They have landscape classes and other community events and will probably host other community events for other city organizations in their new multi-purpose room. She stated that this is something they want to provide for the community as a feature. Parking along Francisco is an arterial street and that is an appropriate place for a larger amount of parking and not on a residential street, and that is again why they moved the entrance to Francisco and took it off Brighton and they think it will benefit by adding attractive landscaping and planting and will make the neighborhood look nicer.

PW Dep. Director Yip wanted to respond to some of the comments.

Acting Chair Wright agreed, but first wanted to make sure Commissioner Devine doesn’t have any more questions for the applicant before they proceed to that.

Commissioner Devine is okay.

PW Dep. Director Yip would like to address the claimed mixed messaging that has been provided to the Water District in terms of staff’s comments to the project. He stated that the first time the traffic analysis was submitted to study, Sam Bautista was no longer working for the city, and he was here to review that first review. He stated that he was here to complete the items in terms of the angle parking, and as far as he can see in the records, he didn’t know if he can determine whether or not Sam Bautista was in support of the project, as he didn’t know what the discussions were in terms of the addition of the stop sign and he only knows what our current staff has told him during the fourth review. As far as the first three reviews, they came in three times in 2022 and he reviewed the email that Sam Bautista and Adrianne Carr had some sort of discussion about a stop sign but that was in late 2021. Sam Bautista still approved completeness letters requesting the Applicant remove the angle parking three times after that email. He doesn’t believe that engineering division had mixed messaging in terms of approval of the angle parking and he doesn’t know what was discussed. He can only say that the stop sign warrants are not there and our traffic consultant could chime in a little bit more about what the primary warrants are and address some of the comments from their traffic engineer.

Traffic Engineer Erin Ferguson referred to the safety discussion around the angled parking and can speak more to the traffic, stop sign and warrants. With the angled parking, in the Fehr and Peers peer review memo, they said the study from Oregon DOT regarding essentially the conclusion that, if there is sufficient parking, introducing angled parking is undesirable as it increases the risk for collisions. Since then, the National Research published by AASHTO in the Highway Safety Manual, which is the manual for industry best practice for understanding what are different roadway characteristics or different roadway design decisions that influence and change the number and the severity of collisions that can happen on a roadway. In that highway safety manual, it also documents that, if you convert on an arterial street, parallel on street

22.d
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

parking to angled parking, then you can see the increase of collisions of about 50-54%. She stated that there are a couple of industry documents, research projects, that have clearly documented moving from parallel parking to angled parking on an arterial increases collisions and it is not something that is trivial.

Acting Chair Wright asked what was the year of that 54% number.

Traffic Engineer Ferguson stated that the manual was published in 2010.

Planning Director Murdock would like to briefly chime in on the reference to the Sharp Park Specific Plan information on parking. There was an assessment of weekday evening occupancy, weekday, midday occupancy and weekend midday occupancy and it was not an in depth parking analysis of the sort that might be done to analyze this issue in extensive detail, but it does relate the available capacity to the percentage of vehicles observed on each segment in a parking lot.

As it relates to the Clarendon and Francisco to Brighton and Francisco segment, that is the focus at this time. In the weekday evening occupancy, it indicated 25-50% of capacity used on street parking. In the weekday midday occupancy, it indicated 50-75% utilization and on the weekend midday, it was 25-50% utilization. He stated that, of the available capacity on that street segment on that block, it is finding that the three different periods analyzed relatively low utilization, and certainly not of the 75-100% which is the high end of utilization that is seen in some segments in other parts of Sharp Park. On balance, it is one of the lesser utilized blocks of Sharp Park in terms of capacity of on street parking that is utilized at the periods observed.

Acting Chair Wright asked if Commissioner Devine had any other questions.

Commissioner Devine stated she did not. She appreciated the information.

Acting Chair Wright asked if there were any other questions.

Commissioner Godwin stated he will stay on parking for a little while. To further expand on what he said earlier, there was plenty of room in the NCCWD land to put in parking stackers and park lots of cars, more than 50, and he asked why they didn’t consider parking in their final design and not have this issue over the change of zoning.

Acting Chair Wright assumed it was a question for the applicant.

Commissioner Godwin responded affirmatively.

Scott Salge with Nollan and Tam Architects stated he will respond in the spirit of how they are attempting to park the site. The corporation yard has limited space and their proposal includes parking for all the staff on the site and the balance of parking that they propose to be exempted for the project is supporting the multi-purpose room, for board meetings and moments when that space is used, and they will see in the documents that there is a breakdown in parking related to those uses for the building and the dominant need is for staff for being there every day and the balance of parking is hoping that the streets can accommodate the moments where they have public coming to the district. They hope the public comes to the board meetings to further understand the benefits the Water District is providing for the city and its community, and that was how they structured the parking strategy. They wanted to leave the corporation yard as available as possible for them to have the operations safely managed, be able to move vehicles

22.d
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

around, move things out of the way if they need to adjust, and parking stackers do provide more limited access to parts of the site, but those are stands and physical attachment to the ground so it has some limitations and they didn’t incorporate it into their project.

Commissioner Godwin stated that, given that off-street parking is safer than street angled parking in all the studies he has read and what he heard from the city at this meeting, he asked why they don’t just pay the in-lieu parking fee for the number of spaces they are short for the off street parking.

Dr. Carr stated that they have not said that they would not pay an in-lieu parking fee, although they have an agreement with the city that they share costs as the city is their biggest water customer. The city does not pay a bi-monthly supply and distribution charge that the rest of their customers pay, which is about $90,000 a year for all the city accounts. She stated that they have a working relationship with the city in all sorts of benefits that they provide to each other. She stated that the city patches some holes for them that are smaller than 100 square feet, they come if they have a leak, if they open up the street, the city will patch that for them as long as smaller than 100 square feet, and they have an existing agreement going back to the 1970s, but when they first applied for this project, they met with Planning Director Murdock in May 2021 and they discussed potential parking exceptions and it could be a charge to the district or it could be recommended as a parking exception. She stated that may be a question for staff if they would recommend a parking exception for this project. She stated that they interacted early with staff and reached out to find out what the city wanted and that was how they designed their project.

They also met with engineering in October 2021 when they got their information from Sam Bautista where they presented all the different parts of the project and he liked the diagonal parking as he thought it would add to the neighborhood and he was the one who recommended to them to study a stop sign at that intersection because if they want to have diagonal parking you should probably put a stop sign but do a traffic study and see what the engineer says. That is why they did that study as they hadn’t proposed a stop sign before Sam Bautista had suggested it. In their first round after submitting their planning application in March 2022, they got comments and incompleteness determination in April 2022 and they had removed diagonal parking and they were very surprised because when they had talked previously, they had gotten a positive reception from engineering and they requested to meet with them. All they got back is that diagonal parking is unsafe, and they didn’t get the list of engineering conditions until PW Dep.

Director Yip sent the letter in February. They didn’t get the conditions and weren’t able to review them from engineering until that time. She stated that they asked engineering about why diagonal parking is unsafe and they said they weren’t sure and suggested that they do a traffic study, and they will consider it then. That is why they did the traffic study. They were also told that there was a TFPP parking spot there now so that is an issue, and that was the first time they learned about that parking spot being placed in front of their headquarters. They thought engineering just conveniently said don’t put diagonal parking as it would be inconvenient for their TFPP program which they designated that as a spot and it came into being between the October 2021 conversation and the April 2022 letter they received to remove diagonal parking.

She thought they would create parking for the neighborhood and they think it’s a good feature for the project.

Commissioner Godwin stated, to make sure he understands her lengthy answer, she is okay with the in-lieu fees if they pay them partly in services as well as cash as an alternative to the angled parking or are they not in favor.

22.d
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Dr. Carr stated that they want the angled parking.

Commissioner Godwin concluded that she is saying they are unwilling to go ahead with the project if they put in a condition as the in-lieu fees instead of the angled parking.

Dr. Carr stated she is not saying that.

Commissioner Godwin stated he needs a clear answer on this, is this an alternative.

Dr. Carr stated she has not considered what the cost is and she does not know the in lieu fees and she doesn’t think their angled parking provides enough for the number of spaces that would need to be provided versus the in-lieu fee. She doesn’t have a number in front of her and she is not sure if she can make a determination as to whether they should make their ratepayers as it is just going to make their water bill higher if they impose that fee on them. She stated that they are robbing Peter to pay Paul, i.e., robbing the Water District customers to give Pacifica a dollar. She stated that they already pay each other and it isn’t very logical.

Commissioner Godwin asked if the project will go ahead without the angled parking or will it stop.

Dr. Carr stated that a decision for the board of directors but they are very in favor of the project with the diagonal parking. She cannot say that’s a policy decision or another elected body. She is the General Manager of the agency and they would have to consider it at a public meeting if that were the decision of the Planning Commission.

Planning Director Murdock wanted to clarify that there is no clear basis for the Planning Commission to impose payment of the in-lieu parking fee. It is an option for the applicant to propose that as one of their parking strategies and acceptance of the payment needs to be approved by the City Council. In a hypothetical example, unrelated to the project, he says there is a project in the Sharp Park Specific Plan area that, for whatever reason does not want to provide off street parking, even though they could, that is a text book example of where they may propose as part of their project to pay the in lieu parking fee so they can utilize that space for other purposes besides off-street parking and the city could use that funding to provide and operate off-street parking facilities in some other centralized location. Where the facts support granting a parking exception, that still needs to be granted even with payment so it is not an either/or in terms of parking exception or payment of the in lieu fee and, in any case, the applicant would need to propose payment of the in-lieu fee as part of their project. In his opinion, it is not something that can be imposed on an applicant.

Acting Chair Wright thought that was useful to know, adding that he thought they had some further insights in response to his question and he thought it would be beneficial to help him get more information on his question.

Mr. Cosgrove stated that, as mentioned, the diagonal parking as a board member, he has been at all of their meetings and the board has been clear in their direction that the project must have diagonal as they are trying to maximize parking for their customers that come from all over Pacifica to conduct business or attend meetings, perform their constitutional right to come to a public meeting and their intent was to maximize parking with the diagonal and the board has been clear that they don’t have a project without that diagonal parking.

22.d
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Acting Chair Wright asked him how many parking spots are they actually gaining as a result of the diagonal parking.

Mr. Cosgrove stated he would have to look, he asked his staff how much are they gaining.

Dr. Carr stated that they are gaining two spaces at the bus stop.

Mr. Cosgrove stated that when the bus stop moves they will gain two.

Planning Director Murdock stated, while Commissioner Godwin is preparing his next question, he wanted to remark on the bus stop and the driveway and that particular issue on Clarendon Road. He stated that, not only did staff previously analyze the construction of a new driveway and had potential safety concerns with line of sight while a bus may be at the bus stop and someone is exiting the new driveway, they also had written comment from SamTrans prior to the May 15 public hearing that had been scheduled where they were concerned about construction of the driveway and the impact to their bus stop and operations. He stated that new information as recently as yesterday that SamTrans may in fact be open to relocation of the stop and that is important new information in staff’s perspective. As mentioned earlier, they think there may be a way to provide some flexibility for the temporary and permanent relocation that might facilitate construction of the third driveway while also suitably relocating that space and it would have the benefit of them providing two additional on street parking spaces, given the removal of the no parking zone that currently exists at the bus stop. He stated that there is potentially a net positive outcome in terms of on street parking if the bus stop can reasonably be relocated and they have information to suggest that may be possible, given the on sight meeting yesterday with SamTrans.

Acting Chair Wright asked if that would change staff’s conditions of approval, such as would that possibly shift their opinion on the diagonal parking or would that not change.

Planning Director Murdock stated staff’s concerns on the angle parking are multiple. The fact that, on balance given the overall project, it may not result in a major increase as he thought it was a net increase of one space, that is one concern. On the driving concern of safety, they have no reason to oppose angle parking if it could be safely constructed and allow sufficient management of the overall right-of-way, but whichever way staff looks at it, they don’t believe it can be done safely and they think it would be at the expense of multi-modal transportation which the General Plan calls for and they really think they should have a separate conversation about angled parking and the Clarendon bus stop/new driveway are distinct issues with distinct considerations.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated before Commissioner Godwin asks a question, they have spoken a lot about engineering review, and he wanted to point out how engineering division conducts their reviews. They look at projects from an engineering feasibility standpoint and they are engineers.

If this project were to come from Public Works, Wastewater treatment, he would have the same comment when they conduct and pull building permits. They are under the same building codes, fire codes, and this is purely an engineering comment. He stated that, if Sam Bautista had seen the traffic analysis from our consultant, hedoesn’t know what his response would be, but that was the first time he saw it and he is seeing a stop sign being proposed for angled parking and the two other stop signs at this location are the two closest ones next to Clarendon are for the purposes of getting across Highway 1 and they are over 1,000 feet to 2,400 feet away. They are looking for

22.d
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

the best interest of the public as well and he understands there are board meetings and the public who go to their counter and pay bills and pull permits, and the engineering division pulls permits for the sewer and for all encroachment permits and they have two 15-minute parking spaces in front of their office and they are looking for the impacts to all 40,000 residents in Pacifica who will pass by Francisco and have to stop at Brighton now and they are looking for the best interests of the public. In addition to that, they talked a lot about traffic and the safety but also about our bike plan. There will be future bike plans and he agrees with them that Francisco is not on the bike master plan and there will be future bike plans. There are probably bike plans that would not have been there 10 or 20 years ago and there were fewer people biking then. There were no Ebikes back then that would be helping someone to climb our hills but they are here today. He wants to point out that it is in the policy in the General Plan to have multi-modal in our city and the addition of the angled parking is going to prevent that for all future bike lanes because you will not be able to place them behind the angled parking the way it is currently proposed. The bike plan was done before this areas was adopted as a PDA which will open it up to future grants and bike lane grants are the most abundant and easy to get from all the types of grants and they will be able to possibly get a grant to install more bike lanes in the city and build our system to make it easier for people to bike and this also will define our downtown which we want to make it multi-modal and give better access to people in addition to just vehicles.

Commissioner Godwin stated his next question is for the applicant. He stated, given that they vet their reclaim of water customers and there are relatively few of them, he asked if they can partition their parking lot in a way that there is a group of people who can come in and use the reclaimed water tap and there are other employees and other people who can use the entire lot as opposed to creating a third driveway.

Dr. Carr stated that she didn’t know if they had a chance to look at their plans closely.

Commissioner Godwin stated he did.

Dr. Carr stated that it is really tight because they have the new solar canopy and they are going to be generating their solar electric over the parking and it is next to their interesting fuel station and it needs to remain where it is and they need to accommodate their new auto shop and a really important feature of this project is the wash rack and they will be able to wash their vehicles in a safe manner so nothing goes into the storm drain that would all go into the sanitary sewer which is now vehicles should be washed. They are going to comply with all the storm water codes. It was developed in the 1960s and now they are going to have all this compliance. There is no other room on the site for a recycled water station but at one of the edges of their property. If they had the one driveway, they would have to come in and here is no room for them to turn around or back out so if they just have one driveway, they would have to have some sort of turnaround for a vehicle and that takes up a lot of room on their property. They have the other driveway that they use in and out for their vehicles all day and they don’t think it’s a great idea to have a recycled water customer to come in their recycled water driveway and exit out their other driveway and they have where they just had to put things on their site. They have a storm water treatment bas in that will be in that location and they wouldn’t be able to have customer drive through that area.

She stated that, having a self-sustaining separated from staff and property secured site really makes it function better for the community. They think it can be done safely. When they first met with the city engineering department, they said just put a right turn only sign, and that was the only request that Sam Bautista had for them when they discussed this recycled water drive through and he said that sounded good but make sure that customers aren’t turning left onto

22.d
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Clarendon from there as that would create a hazard. So they made it a one-way signed, right turn only, and that will make it safe for our customers.

Mr. Cosgrove stated that the corporation yard of the Water District, as has been mentioned, is an emergency operation center where emergency vehicles come out of there responding to drinking water leaks, numerous times, on a monthly or weekly basis. He stated that how its designed in there has to be very carefully designed which is what they have done. He stated that moving things around is very difficult for them to do as emergency vehicles are coming out of there. On the parking situation, he wished he could take them all out to the site now, and he can show they what happens where the parking ends up in front of homes because of people who come to conduct this business at the Water District and there is a parking problem there. He has been on the board since 2004 and lives nearby, and there is a parking issue there. All they have to do is go look at it and he can show them.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, whatever the Commission may have interest, they have one mark up of a potential alternative to show that they have tried to think of alternative ways to satisfy the district’s desire for a dedicated and recycled water filling location while also avoiding the need for a third driveway. He stated that Dep. Director Yip can speak to that.

Acting Chair Wright would love to hear that but he asked that they adjourn for two minutes.

Acting Chair Wright called a recess then reconvened the meeting. He stated that staff suggested they had potential alternatives.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they needed a moment to bring up a visual. He stated that Dep. Director Yip will walk them through the schematic that shows a concept where the existing driveways remain and no new driveway is constructed and potentially the dedicated off-street recycled water filling station could operate with a pull through for residents in a secured area beyond for the Water District’s operations.

Acting Chair Wright asked if it was possible to do a split screen with their original plan so they can see what the difference is between the new proposed plan at the same time or is that done by the shading.

Planning Director Murdock wasn’t sure he could do that at this time.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that the proposed site plan is the first layer and they can see below and the staff’s markings above their proposed site plain.

PW Dep. Director Yip stated it is an alternative design that was discussed with their last slide in response to their letter and potentially they could first move the gate further inward and the whole outer portion of the site is exposed to the public. The previous concerns were if a bus was parked in front of their new driveway, it would cause a line of site issue regardless if someone was turning right or left. if it were to come out too quickly, oncoming cars on Clarendon could hit them and this would prevent that as vehicles can only turn right at the latter part of the site and make a right turn and then, when they exit they will be behind the bus stop. This alternative will not be dependent on the bus stop relocation and any Caltrans approval. The bus stop can remain where it is and it seems like its feasible and can work with the storm water facilities on site. He

22.d
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

believes it can still work and they can still have some water treatment and meet CEQA requirements.

Planning Director Murdock stated, as he mentioned, the initial analysis here was assuming the bus stop remained. With the information they have gleaned from Sam Trans yesterday that they are open to relocating the bus stop, with this alternative proposal, they could actually yield an increase of three on street parking spaces by removal o f the bus stop which will be two spaces and removal of the proposed third driveway being a third space. With those modifications, they could achieve the number of on street parking spaces that the district is seeking to increase with the angled parking without introducing those safety concerns that staff has identified on Francisco from the angled parking.

Acting Chair Wright asked if the applicant had a chance to review this plan.

Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that this was done by staff in response to the letter that was sent today.

Dr. Carr stated that they sent the letter on May 15 with the same comments, so they know that they did say the importance of this driveway on their comment letter they submitted on May 15 and they haven’t received any response from the city since that date either. She stated that this is a new plan. She knows their trash enclosure is right there. They have to have access for a trash truck and that is one of the biggest things that they need to accommodate in this area and that was one thing that her architect, upon seeing this plan, they have been working on this for a long time.

If the direction of traffic were this way, if they had their third driveway, the car could go in that middle driveway and circulate and turn right only out of the driveway and if it just goes in in the new curve cut, that would also achieve the same things and wouldn’t have the blockage by the bus. If the red arrow was in the middle curb cut, it would achieve the same thing and also separate out that recycled water drive through as a single feature in their project.

Mr. Salge stated that, in addition, there is a real desire from the district to separate district vehicles going through their gate and vehicles serving the recycled water. They want to separate those two functions and that is why they created the driveway in the first place as they want all the vehicles, trucks, back trucks, large vehicles coming out of that automatic gate for the district to be separate as he thinks that helps safety on that street and doesn’t cause a conflict between recycled water users and the district operations through that gate.

Acting Chair Wright asked if he is understanding correctly that, if instead of entering down as they are looking at the screen, the plan is up above the head, and instead of entering on the left, if it was entering in the middle one, that would be an acceptable potential solution for them.

Dr. Carr stated absolutely. She clarified that in the middle driveway. She stated that, in the third driveway they would add, they could enter in the middle driveway and exit out the one on the eastern driveway. They would like to reserve the western driveway for district vehicles in and out because it is their in and out way and they have trucks that need to rapidly respond and go out.

Acting Chair Wright thought that could be a solution as opposed to doing the additional driveway.

22.d
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Dr. Carr stated that they will need the driveway to go in and they could come out the existing driveway to the east which is already there and they have an existing curb cut there.

Acting Chair Wright stated that they just want to move the red arrow over one driveway.

Dr. Carr agreed, stating that will work for them.

Acting Chair Wright asked if staff has an opinion about that.

Planning Director Murdock stated that would still result in the third driveway and the alternative was attempting to demonstrate the ability to not construct the third driveway and how that recycled water filling station would operate and the incidental benefits of this alternative would be an additional 2-3 on-street parking spaces, depending on they count.

Commissioner Godwin thought the objective here was to have everyone enter at the one point where the automated gate is further in and then the refill water users were leave via the curb cut.

Planning Director Murdock stated that is how the schematic would operate in this scenario.

Commissioner Godwin stated that is the point he was trying to make, that there are alternative ways of laying this out that are workable.

Planning Director Murdock stated that was the purpose. It was illustrative and is not a fully designed alternative concept.

Commissioner Godwin stated that it was just a thought.

Acting Chair Wright does understand the Water District’s desire to not comingle the traffic, however, it is how do we serve all these different masters at once to come up with the best compromise. He was glad to see that they are trying to work together with some different ideas and come up with something that will work for everybody.

Commissioner Godwin had another question, i.e., the number of recycled water users at the moment, if he recalls correctly from the study, was about 20, and is that near the correct number.

Dr. Carr stated that they have 68 users but they have about 20 users who use it regularly such as on a weekly basis.

Commissioner Godwin stated that they are increasing the number of hours it would be open three days a week to about six days a week.

Dr. Carr stated that it would be open during Monday through Friday and then on weekends when they have staff at the district. They have staff on duty every single weekend but it depends as some weekends they need to be at their pump stations but when there is staff at the corporation yard, they open up the gate and it would be on a regular schedule because there are certain staff that are assigned different tasks and they have a schedule of when they are working on the weekends.

22.d
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Commissioner Godwin stated doing some simple math, there are about 20 people using it and, over the new schedule, it will be over 5 or 6 day periods and they are looking at 3-4 people a day, and some come more than once.

Dr. Carr stated that people come more than once and they have heard from some people who use recycled water that their neighbors are reluctant to join the program because there aren’t enough hours and she assumed they would have increased usership of the program and that is their desire.

Commissioner Godwin understood it is hard to quantify. Now, if the number of users remain the same they are looking at 4-6 people a day.

Dr. Carr stated that sometimes it can be ten people in a day even now.

Commissioner Godwin stated that is like one an hour, or maybe two an hour, and there is not that much conflict there if they shared a common entrance if that was the choice. It would be a minute or two once in a while.

Acting Chair Wright asked what the total number of hours increased.

Dr. Carr stated it would be six hours a week up to like 36 hours a week.

Acting Chair Wright thought it would six fold.

Dr. Carr agreed six fold and, if not seven.

Commissioner Godwin stated that the city suggested the design concept is not totally out of consideration, it is certainly not a design.

Dr. Carr stated that they would have to make sure the trash truck could make it in and she thinks that would compromise a couple of the parking spots that they had designated inside the fence.

Commissioner Godwin thought there was a lot to be done to turn it from a concept into a design.

He wasn’t trying to minimize that but there are thoughts that could be placed.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they talked about a number of different alternative and staff has identified a way to try to be supportive of a relocation of the bus stop in light of SamTrans’ newly expressed interest in the ability to relocate the space. That would yield two on street parking spaces with removal of the bus stop and they are really talking about an increase of probably one on street space with the removal of the driveway. If they were talking about an alternative design and if it presented a lot of issues that the water District suggests it may, it is a difference of one space but that one space could be valuable to someone wanting to park there.

He wanted to hone in on what the delta is between these different alternatives they are discussing.

Commissioner Berman thanked staff and be a third-party consultant for the thorough analysis and review that was completed. Also, the consideration for different alternatives which takes a lot of staff time and professionalism and respect. She is in support of the application in front of them with the addition of staff’s conditions of approval that have been thoroughly discussed.

Reviewing all of the staff report, the plan, both traffic analyses, she understands the city’s concerns and she agrees with them. She also participated in the local roadway safety plan that the

22.d
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

city has been conducting for the past six months. She was a stakeholder for the Planning Commission with the traffic consultant who also provided the third party review for this project.

She knows how understanding they are of the safety needs of the city because they spent six months going through it together very thoroughly, and they were very receptive of our stakeholder comments which did include parking concerns throughout Sharp Park especially and, with respect to safe and bicycle use and pedestrian use. She also was very passionate about the bike plan that they developed in the Sharp Park Specific Plan which also took a couple of months of our summer altogether which also had bike improvements that are more current than what is presented in the bicycle and pedestrian plan, not conflicting but, if anything, enhancing the bike and pedestrian improvement at this intersection which is a heavily used intersection and it is tight as there isn’t a lot of room there. She is ready to make a motion whenever the chair is ready to hear one.

Acting Chair Wright stated he has a few questions of his own. He asked if she has any other further questions
Commissioner Berman stated she has no questions.

Acting Chair Wright asked Asst. City Attorney Sharma, if she is ready with a motion, does he need to entertain the motion or is he able to continue deliberations and then take motions.

Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated he may continue.

Acting Chair W right just wanted to make sure he isn’t stepping on any toes. He had a few questions for the applicant in regard to timing of when this project is done. He asked if their contractor was present.

Dr. Carr stated that they don’t have a contractor as they have not put the project out to bid due to the fact that they don’t have permits.

Acting Chair Wright asked if they will be upgrading their PG&E and where are they in that process.

Dr. Carr stated that they showed up in April and asked them to do the inspection. The inspected when they originally submitted their plans in March 2022 that they would be breaking ground in November 2022, so they are ready to take the project out to bid as soon as they get their permit.

Acting Chair Wright stated that, regarding PG&E, he has four projects in the city and he has been working with them.

Dr. Carr stated that they are ready and they have them on speed dial. They have a lot of projects too.

Acting Chair Wright asked how long it typically takes once they put something out to bid before they select a contractor.

Dr. Carr stated they usually open their bid period for about three weeks to one month.

Acting Chair Wright stated it would be three weeks before they select them.

22.d
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Dr. Carr stated potentially, as they have all the documents ready to put out to bid and they are pending not just planning permits but they would also have to submit to the building department and get building permits.

Acting Chair W right asked how long she expected that period to be.

Dr. Carr stated that they have been told by the building department that it is 2-3 weeks for their first review. She stated that they met with the building department as well and met with them first in 2021. They have talked about their project with the building department.

Acting Chair Wright thought he was hearing her say that they would be ready to break ground in about six weeks.

Dr. Carr stated that, if they get their permits at this meeting, she thought they would probably be ready in late August or early September to break ground. She didn’t know when the notice to proceed wound be, maybe that would be notice to proceed and then breaking ground would be after that.

Acting Chair Wright thought that was the last question on that, and he thought the PG&E time was a little bit optimistic.

Dr. Carr stated that a transformer doesn’t have to be done at the first stage of the project. The project is scheduled in December and they had their project breaking ground in April and PG&E was going to install the transformer in September. They had shown up because that was the time when they were going to evaluate the project and that was their schedule. She didn’t think the transformer work occurs right at the beginning of the project but about 5-6 months in.

Acting Chair Wright stated, potentially, the parking, you would have about six months for that mobile home to figure out some kind of relocation before it absolutely had to move.

Dr. Carr didn’t know that answer. She stated they are having their storage of the materials that are going to be broken down from the building and it is going to be right in that area, adjacent.

Acting Chair Wright asked if on the street.

Dr. Carr stated it is not on the street but in the area adjacent so there will be heavy construction and she wouldn’t want to live next to heavy construction site. It might be more kind to relocate occupants prior to the start of construction.

Acting Chair Wright understood she had been collaborating somehow to try to figure out a solution to that. He asked what period of time is needed for that.

Dr. Carr thought the city and district have talked about that it could probably happen soon but that is a question more for the city as they has jurisdiction over this item.

Acting Chair Wright asked if staff has a response to any of those questions.

22.d
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Planning Director Murdock wanted to indicate that there are two conditions of approval that they would like to read modifications into the record and suggest that they be part of any motion to approve the project, if that is where the Commission is going. They have a third condition that they would suggest modifying, depending on where the Commission is at with respect to the third driveway on Clarendon which relates to condition No. 24.

Acting Chair Wright asked if they are able to break this down into the project minus the conditions and then vote on the conditions individually or does it have to be done all at once to see if there is enough support for each of them before they make a final thing or does it have to be an all or nothing kind of thing.

Planning Director Murdock suggested entertaining more discussion among the Commission about any particular issues that they are trying to read the pulse. They didn’t think it was possible to split the project as proposed “from the conditions” as they have analyzed the project and the findings they prepared to support the various permit approvals are incumbent upon the conditions as they have been presented or as the propose to modify them. It is difficult to disentangle them from a complete analysis.

Acting Chair Wright asked if he could inform them as to what their new conditions of approval might entail.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they would suggest that any motion to move forward to approve the project would modify Condition No. 21 to be prior to final inspection, applicant shall grind and overlay existing asphalt with minimum 2-inch AC to the limits of all utility connections or to street center line, whichever is greater across entire property frontage along Francisco Blvd., Clarendon Road, and Brighton Road, all pavement markings and markers shall be replaced in kind by applicant. The would suggest removing condition No. 22 entirely. There is revision to Condition No. 24 which currently prohibits construction of a third driveway. They would propose a different condition entirely to address relocation of the bus stop but he doesn’t have a sense where the Commission is on the question of supporting or not the construction of the third driveway. He doesn’t know if there is a desire by a majority of the Commission to divert from what the staff has presented.

Acting Chair Wright thought now was a good time for them to deliberate a little more on the thought about the third driveway. He asked Commissioner Berman to enlighten them with her opinion.

Commissioner Berman was in favor with staff’s initial recommendation to limit this face of the property to two driveways, and she appreciates Commissioner Godwin’s questions regarding the capacity of people using the through driveway that helped her visualize what the use of this area may be, and typically she knows it is often avoided to try to have too many driveways in one close proximity location, especially near an intersection that is heavily used. She was in support of limiting to two driveways which will also add additional on-street parking and she would also like to see the applicant, the city and Caltrans work together on relocated the bus stop which would be subject to the city engineer’s approval.

Commissioner Devine was in support of a third driveway as she feels like, if you are more than tripling the amount of hours of the service, most people cannot access because she works and the people using this is going to increase logically speaking. She is absolutely in favor of what

22.d
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Commissioner Berman suggested in regard to relocating the bus stop as she doesn’t necessarily feel like taking away the third driveway is sufficient. She was excited to hear Commissioner Godwin’s thoughts.

Commissioner Godwin stated that, on Condition No. 24, he was in favor of a two-driveway solution and not in favor of a third driveway. He thinks it’s a good idea to relocate the bus stop away from the driveway so there is less activity at that point and to the extent SamTrans and the city engineer and applicant can all agree on something and he thinks that would be of benefit to the project.

Acting Chair Wright stated to complete the division, he is totally in favor of moving the bus stop and, if everybody can work together on that, he would feel really good about that. As far as the driveways go, he was torn. He understands the desire to not comingle the traffic for a number of reasons, having sequenced a number of jobs himself and understanding the comings and goings.

He was appreciative of the fact that they are talking about is a six-fold increase in the number of hours and the opportunity for people to avail themselves of recycled water. This is a big plus and they are setting a good example for a lot of communities in doing this. The best way forward on how to get there, without understanding better, is the two driveway solution at all workable for them.

Mr. Cosgrove stated that he would like to say that this is an emergency operation center and he works in the water industry and he thinks of it very much like a fire station. You don’t obstruct a fire truck coming out of the fire station. A water truck coming out to respond to a public health emergency\, i.e, a water leak, if you don’t have water, it is a serious emergency and they design this so they have the utmost care in their emergency vehicles coming out of that facility and he can’t stress that enough as these are emergency vehicles responding to public health emergencies.

Acting Chair Wright stated that, where he comes down on that is that, if it was feasible, he would be in favor of the two driveway solution but what he is hearing from the applicant is that they have pretty decent reasoning on why they would want three driveways and he falls in the threedriveway camp. Additionally, it is a super large lot. If they were all houses and it wasn’t the water department, he imagines that they would be talking about more than three driveways for this lot which, for him, is another consideration. He asked if her motion still applies.

Commissioner Berman was happy to still make her motion.

Commissioner Berman moved that the Planning Commission FINDS the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, APPROVES Site Development PSD-857-22, Coastal Development Project CDP-435-22, Use Permit UP-130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 by adopting the attached resolution, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A with a modification to Condition 21 and removal of Condition 22 and in Condition No. 24, the applicant, city and Caltrans working together to find alternatives to relocating the bus stop, subject to the City Engineer’s approval; and incorporates all maps and testimony in to eh record by reference.

Planning Director Murdock asked of the maker of the motion would be willing to slightly revise the motion.

Commissioner Berman agreed.

22.d
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

Planning Director Murdock stated if the motion is to keep Condition No. 24 as it is with respect to prohibiting the third driveway, he would suggest creating a new condition of approval that would go at the end to address the relocation of the bus stop and they have some language to suggest that are modified, suggesting, “applicant shall coordinate with SamTrans to temporarily relocate the Clarendon Road bus stop prior to commencement of construction, permanent relocation of the bus stop after completion of construction shall be subject to written approval of the City Engineer, including review of the proposed new bus stop location and design and any necessary approval by other agencies, including but not limited to Caltrans”.

Commissioner Berman so moved with that additional condition.

Acting Chair Wright asked clarification that the motion does not include the third driveway and does not include diagonal parking.

Commissioner Berman stated her motion does not include the third driveway and does not include the diagonal parking as the diagonal parking relates to Conditions of approval 12 and 13 and those are still in her motion.

Acting Chair Wright asked if there was a second.

Commissioner Godwin seconded the motion.

The motion carried 3-1.

Ayes: Commissioners Devine, Berman and Godwin,
Noes: Acting Chair Wright
Acting Chair Wright declared that anyone aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission has ten (10) calendar days to appeal the decision in writing to the City Council.

22.d
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2023

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business for discussion, Commissioner Godwin moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:51 p.m.; Commissioner Berman seconded the motion.

The motion carried 4-0.

Ayes: Commissioners Devine, Berman, Godwin and
Acting Chair Wright
Noes: None
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Medina
Public Meeting Stenographer
APPROVED:
____________________________
Planning Director Murdock

22.d
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes from June 12, 2023 (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

LOCAL STREET MAP

PROJECT LOCATION

THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING ONE-STORY AUTO REPAIR BAY, AND DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY 9,750 SQFT SPACE AND UPGRADES TO

THE EXISTING MAINTENANCE BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SEPARATE SHOP BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROJECT WILL MAINTAIN EXISTING SCADA SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES AND TRANSFER THE SCADA TO A NEW SPACE IN THE NEW BUILDING.

UPGRADES TO 4,700 SQFT MAINTENANCE BUILDING:

1. ADD WALL-MOUNTED TRELLISES AT NORTH ELEVATION

2. SEISMIC RETROFIT

3. SKIM COAT AND PAINT EXTERIOR, PAINT INTERIOR
SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING:

1. UTILITIES/INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES

2. HARDSCAPE PATHWAYS

3. SOFTSCAPE PLANTING

4. NEW RECYCLED WATER DRIVE-THROUGH

5. SECURITY FENCING AND GATES
EXISTING FUELING STATION TO REMAIN AS IS.

SHOP BUILDING: 1375 SQFT
SOLAR CANOPY: 1800 SQFT
WASH RACK: 450 SQFT

PROJECT SUMMARY

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:37:27 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

COVER SHEET
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.G0.00

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PLANNING APP - RESUBMITTAL - 09/05/22
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Client
North Coast County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Tel: (650)355-3462
Architect
Noll & Tam Architects
729 Heinz Ave
Berkeley, CA 94710
Tel: (510) 542-2200
Fax: (510) 542-2201
Cost Estimator
TBD Consultants Inc.
110 Pine Street Suite 1315
San Francisco CA 94112
Tel: (415) 981-9430
Civil
BKF Engineers
254 Shoreline Drive Suite
200
Redwood City CA 94065
Tel: (650) 482-6300
Structural
IDA Structural Engineers
Inc.
1629 Telegraph Avenue
Suite 300
Oakland CA 94612-2114
Tel: (510) 834-1629
MEP
Gayner Engineers
1133 Post Street
San Francisco CA 94109
Tel: (415) 474-9500
Low Voltage
Smith, Fause & McDonald
Inc.
351 8th Street
San Francisco CA 94103
Tel: (415) 255-9140
Fax: (415) 255-9180
Landscape
RHAA Landscape
Architects + Planners
323 Geary St # 602
San Francisco CA 94102
Tel: (415) 861-7900
# DATE DESCRIPTION

PLANNING
PL.G0.00 COVER SHEET

PLANNING
PL.A1.01 SITE PLAN - EXISTING
PL.A2.01 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
PL.A2.02 SITE PLAN - CONTEXT
PL.A2.31 FLOOR PLAN- 1ST FLOOR
PL.A2.32 FLOOR PLAN- 2ND FLOOR
PL.A3.11 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
PL.A3.12 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SITE CONTEXT
PL.A3.13 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SHOP BUILDING
PL.A3.31 BUILDING SECTIONS
CIVIL
C1.00. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
C2.00. HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
C2.01. PAVING PLAN
C3.00. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C3.01. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C4.00. UTILITY PLAN
C4.01. UTILITY PLAN
C5.00. STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN
C5.01. STORM WATER CONTROL DETAILS
C6.00. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
C6.01. EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS
C6.02. SAN MATEO COUNTY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

LANDSCAPE
L1.00 PLANTING PLAN
L2.00 IRRIGATION PLAN

ELECTRICAL
E0.03. ELECTRICAL EXTERIOR FIXTURE SCHEDULE
E1.02. ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PLAN - SITE
TOTAL SHEETS: : 26

SHEET INDEX
APN: 016322230

22.e
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) (E) CURB RAMP
(E) PAD AND

GENERATOR
(E) RECYCLED

WATER FILL
▲N
(E) PLANTERS
1761 SQFT TOTAL
(E) PACBELL

UTILITY VAULT
(E) PG&E

UTILITY VAULTS
7' -
0 "
S
I
D
E
WA
L
K
4' - 8" SIDEWALK
(E) CORP YARD
24260 SQFT TOTAL
123456789
10 11 12
6' -
0 "
(
E
)
S
I
D
E
WA
L
K
5' -
1 1
"
(
E
)
P
LA
NTE
R
5' -
4 "

ENTRANCE

PROPERTY LINE
(E) FUELING STATION

NO CHANGES PROPOSED

CLARENDON RD

FRANCISCO BLVD
50 FEET WIDE
50 FEET WIDE
50 FEET WIDE
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
P13
(E) ANTENNA POLE WILL BE

DEMOLISHED & TRANSMITTERS

RELOCATED TO MAINTENANCE

BUILDING
(E) ANTENNA POLE TO REMAIN.
58' ABOVE GRADE.

P14 P15
VA
C
U
U
M
TR
U
C
K
BA
C
K
H
O
E

MINI DUMP TRUCK
S
ER
VIC
E
TR
U
C
K
VA
C
U
U
M
P
AR
KIN
G
P
AR
KIN
G
P
AR
KIN
G
TR
U
C
K
13 14 15
(E) GREEN ZONE

SHORT TERM PARKING
(E) ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE
(E) DEFUNCT FLAGPOLE

TO BE REMOVED
(E) TWO-STORY

SERVICE BAY AND

OFFICES
(E) ONE-STORY

OFFICES
(E) MAINTENANCE

BUILDING
(E) FILL MATERIAL

STORAGE
(E) STREET LIGHT

UTILITY BOX
(E) RECYCLED WATER

ACCESS BOX
(E) STORAGE
SHEDS

BRIGHTON RD
(E) GREEN ZONE SHORT TERM

PARKING

LANDSCAPING

SIDEWALK

CORP YARD

BUILDING

SITE SUMMARY - EXISTING
1740 SQFT
3480 SQFT
24260 SQFT
9409 SQFT

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:36:03 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

SITE PLAN - EXISTING
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A1.01

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
# DATE DESCRIPTION
PL.A1.01 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 01 - SITE PROGRAM - EXISTING - PLANNING

22.e
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) (N) 6 FEET HIGH

FENCE AND GATE
(E) CURB CUT (N) CURB CUT (E) CURB CUT
(E) BUS STOP
(E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING

BENCHES /

SITE FURNITURE

SIDEWALK
4' - 6"
(N) GENERATOR
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
P7
P8
P9
SID
E
WA
L
K
5' - 0".
(N) DISTRICT OFFICE ENTRANCE

PROPERTY LINE

BRIGHTON RD
F
RA
N
C
I
S
C
O
BLV
D

CLARENDON RD
(N) GATE
(N) AUTOMATIC GATE (N) PG&E

TRANSFORMER
17'
50'
8 9'
52' - 7 1/8"

TIME-LIMITED PARKING
8 6' - 4"
APN: 016322240
171 CLARENDON RD
APN: 016322040
178 BRIGHTON RD
32'
51'
BUILT 1972
APN: 016322130
159 CLARENDON RD
APN: 016322030
178 BRIGHTON RD
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G

ADA / EV

PARKING
P10
P11
P12
P13
P14
P15
P16
(N) SHOP

BUILDING

OPEN AIR

WASH RACK
(N) DIAG
O
N
A
L
PA
R
KIN
G
(N) PV
CANOPY
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S14
(N) TRASH

ENCLOSURE
(E) FILL

MATERIAL

STORAGE
(E) FUELING

STATION TO

REMAIN AS IS
(E) ACCESSIBLE PARKING

SPOT WITH (N) ACCESS

AISLE AND CURB RAMP
26' - 1 7/8"
55' - 8"

DRIVE THROUGH

WATER REFILL

STATION

EQUIPMENT FROM
(E) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
TO BE MOUNTED TO (E) 58' POLE
215' - 3"
172' - 7"
159' - 6"
PA
R
KING
P
A
R
KIN
G
VACUUM
TRUCK

BACKHOE MINI
DUMP
TRUCK

SERVICE
TRUCK

VACUUM PARKING PARKING PARKING
TRUCK
S17
S1
S11 S12 S13
S19
PA
R
KING
S20

END STALL IN A ROW OF

PARALLEL SPACES MAY BE
REDUCED TO 20 FEET PER
SEC 9-4.2817 OF THE
PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE.

END STALL IN A ROW OF PARALLEL
SPACES MAY BE REDUCED TO 20
FEET PER SEC 9-4.2817 OF THE
PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE.

PA
R
KING
S16
S15
PA
R
KING

PARKING
35' - 6"

ELEVATOR
SHAFT
ROOF
HATCH
ROOF

MONITOR
PA
R
KING
85'
58'
8' - 0"

TYPICAL STALL DIMENSIONS PER SEC
9-4.2817 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE.
24' - 0"

MECHANICAL SCREEN
S18

PARKING
24' - 0"
45°.
9' - 0"
19' - 0"

TYPICAL STALL

DIMENSIONS PER
SEC 9-4.2817 OF

THE PACIFICA
MUNICIPAL CODE.

PROPERTY LINES

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION

AND POST INDICATOR VALVE,
WITH (4) BOLLARDS

WASH RACK
RAMP

EV CHARGER

EV CHARGERS
(N) MAIN

SWITCHBOARD IN

LOCKABLE

ENCLOSURE
(N) 6 FEET HIGH

FENCE AND GATE
N

LANDSCAPING

SIDEWALK

CORP YARD

BUILDINGS

WATER FILL DRIVE

STAFF PARKING

PUBLIC PARKING

SITE SUMMARY - PROPOSED
2391 SQFT
3950 SQFT
19590 SQFT
11620 SQFT
1968 SQFT
20 16/14
CHANGE

FROM EXISTING
(DIAGONAL)
+651 SQFT
+960 SQFT
-4670 SQFT
+2211 SQFT
+2039 SQFT
+5 SPACES
+1 SPACES
% OF LOT AREA
(35223 SQFT)

6.8%
N/A

55.6%
33%
N/A
N/A
N/A
S#
P#
+651 SQFT
+960 SQFT
-4670 SQFT
+2211 SQFT
+2039 SQFT
+5 SPACES
-1 SPACES
CHANGE

FROM EXISTING
(PARALLEL)

DIAGONAL/PARALLEL
CLEARANCE REQUIRED PER PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9-4.2817 (FOOTPRINT)

OPERATION STAFF

ON SITE PARKING TABULATION - REQUIRED
ADMINISTRATION STAFF 8

MEDIUM CONFERENCE
12 10

MULTI PURPOSE ROOM

PARKING SPACES

REQUIRED

PARKING SPACES

PROPOSED
NCCWD EMPLOYEES 20

MEETING AND

CONFERENCE ROOM
NOTE: IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SAFE OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CORPORATION YARD, PUBLIC PARKING CANNOT BE PROVIDED ON-SITE.

OCCUPANT TYPE

SMALL CONFERENCE
8 78
6 OCCUPANTS
92 20
PER SECTION 9-4.2818(f)(8) OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE: One parking space for each employee on a maximum shift, plus parking spaces equal in number to ten (10%) percent of the capacity in persons of any conference and meeting room.
0 OPERATION STAFF

ON SITE PARKING TABULATION - EXISTING
ADMINISTRATION STAFF 8

MEETING ROOM
12 5

BOARD ROOM

PARKING SPACES
NEEDED

PARKING SPACES

EXISTING
NCCWD EMPLOYEES 15

MEETING AND

CONFERENCE ROOM

OCCUPANT TYPE
16 32

OCCUPANTS
48 20
0 WIDTH

DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARKING AREAS
LENGTH 19'
9'
90 DEGREE ANGLE

PARKING STALL

DRIVE AISLE

CLEARANCE
25'
ONE WAY 25'

TWO WAY
LENGTH
WIDTH

CLEARANCE
PER SECTION 9-4.2817 OF THE

PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS
DRAFT!

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:36:09 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A2.01

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
# DATE DESCRIPTION
PL.A2.01 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 01 - SITE PROGRAM - DIAGONAL PARKING - PLANNING

22.e
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 54'
1' BRIGHTON RD

FRANCISCO BLVD

CLARENDON RD
50 FEET WIDE
50 FEET WIDE
50 FEET WIDE

TWO-STORY

COMMERCIAL

BUILDING

SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING
(E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (N) TWO-STORY

DISTRICT OFFICE
(N) COVERED

TRASH ENCLOSURE
(N) ONE AND A

HALF STORY

SHOP BUILDING
(N) PV
CANOPY
(N) RECYCLED WATER

DRIVE THROUGH

SLIDING GATES
(E) BUS STOP

SINGLE STORY
7-ELEVEN

PROPERTY LINE

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:36:12 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

SITE PLAN - CONTEXT
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A2.02

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A2.02 1/32" = 1'-0" 1 01 - SITE - PLANNING
# DATE DESCRIPTION

22.e
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Office - GM
Office - AGM
Office -
Accountant/HR
Office -
Management
Analyst 1
Small
Conference
Office - Cust
Service II
Wkstn - Cust
Service/ M.

Analyst
Wkstn Meter
Reader 2
Wkstn - Cust
Service Rep
Wkstn - Cust
Service Rep
Copy/Print/Mail
Area
Multi Occ Toilet Admin Archives
(F)
Office - Lead
Meter Reader
Hallway 4
Custodial
Electrical 1
Hallway 3
Hallway 5
Open Work Area
- 01
Reception
Counter
Swag
Closet
Public
Elevator
Multi Occ Toilet
(M)
Mud Room
Hallway 2
Unisex
Shower/
Changing
Lactation/Quiet
Room
Hallway 1
Wellness
Room
Lab inc Wkstn
Break Room
(E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING
1 PL.A3.31
________
2 PL.A3.31
________

NEW EXISTING
Elevator
Machine
Room

PROPERTY LINE
(E) PLANTER TO REMAIN

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:36:14 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District
FLOOR PLAN- 1ST
FLOOR
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A2.31

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A2.31 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 01 - FLOOR PLAN
# DATE DESCRIPTION

22.e
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

OPEN TO BELOW
Multipurpose
Room
Deck
Mechanical Shaft
AV
MultiPurpose
Room Storage
Elevator
Single Occ
Toilet
Single Occ
Toilet
Mechanical Public
Electrical 1
Server - IT
Hotel Wkstn - IT
Shared Office -
Senior Field
Office -
SCADA Office - Field
Supervisor
Office - AGM
OPs
O & M Library
Wkstn
Mgmt Analyst
Wkstn
O&M 2
Wkstn
O&M 3
Wkstn
O&M 4
Work Area
Wkstn
O&M 1
Wkstn
GIS
Wkstn -
Bookkeeper
Print Room
File Storage
Medium
Conference2
PL.A3.31
________

NEW EXISTING
(E) Mezzanine
Skylight Above

PROPERTY LINE

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:36:15 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District
FLOOR PLAN- 2ND
FLOOR
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A2.32

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A2.32 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 02 - FLOOR PLAN - PLANNING
# DATE DESCRIPTION

22.e
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")

02.1 - TOP OF (E) PARAPET
19' - 2" (+41' - 0 3/4")

NEW EXISTING

MAINTENANCE BUILDING

DECORATIVE METAL PANEL/TRELLIS FOR VINES

METAL SPANDRAL PANELS TO MATCH
BENT ALUMINUM WINDOW SHADES, TYP.

WEDGE SHAPED BUILDING

MOUNTED LIGHTING

02.2 - (N) PARAPET @ MAINTENANCE
21' - 8" (+43' - 6 3/4")
01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")

FINE SAND FINISH

STUCCO, TYP

BOARD FORMED

CONCRETE PLANTER
HORIZONTAL 6" SHIPLAP
CEDAR SIDING, PREWEATHERED FINISH, TYP
03 - TOP OF PARAPET
25' - 10" (+47' - 8 3/4")
12" TALL, BRUSHED STAINLESS STEEL LETTERS.

TOTAL BUILDING SIGNAGE AREA IS 40 SQFT.

SIZED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE, SEC 9-4.2906.

BOARD FORMED

CONCRETE STEM WALL

BENT ALUMINUM FRAME

EXTERIOR WINDOW SHADES

TOP OF SHOP BUILDING
17' - 0"
(E) ANTENNA, SEE

SOUTH ELEVATION

FOR FULL HEIGHT
06 - TOP OF MECH SCREEN
30' - 0" (+51' - 10 3/4")
07 - TOP OF CONDENSING UNIT
33' - 2" (+55' - 0 3/4")
08 - TOP OF EXHAUST VENT
35' - 9" (+57' - 7 3/4")
01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")

BOARD FORMED CONCRETE

STEM WALL, TYP
04 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
26' - 4" (+48' - 2 3/4")

GENERATOR

EXISTING NEW

MAINTENANCE BUILDING
05 - TOP OF ELEVATOR OVERRUN
27' - 10 1/4" (+49' - 9")
(E) POLE FOR EQUIPMENT
09 - TOP OF POLE
58' - 0" (+79' - 10 3/4")
08 - TOP OF EXHAUST VENT
35' - 9" (+57' - 7 3/4")
01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")
04 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
26' - 4" (+48' - 2 3/4")

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:37:10 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A3.11

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A3.11 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH - PLANNING
PL.A3.11 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 BUILDING ELEVATION - EAST - PLANNING
PL.A3.11 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH - PLANNING
PL.A3.11 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST - PLANNING
# DATE DESCRIPTION
(E) POLES AT (E) ADMIN BLDG WILL BE
REMOVED.

EQUIPMENT TO BE MOUNTED TO (E)
58' POLE AT MAINTENANCE BUILDING.

FENCE:

AMERISTAR

MONTAGE II

GENESIS
WALL FINISH:

STUCCO FINE

TEXTURE
WALL FINISH:

EXTERIOR

WEATHERED

WOOD SIDING
GLAZING:

LOW-E GLASS
WALL FINISH:

CONCRETE

BOARD FORM

22.e
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

FRANCISCO BLVD BRIGHTON RD
HIGHWAY 1

CLARENDON RD FRANCISCO BLVD BRIGHTON RD

VERTICAL STEEL

FLAT WELDED FENCE
(E) FLAG POLE
(E) STREET LIGHT
6' - 0"
12' - 0"

BUS STOP

PRE-FABRICATED METAL

AUTO SHOP BUILDING
(E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING
20 FT HIGH PROPOSED

SITE LIGHTING POLE

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:37:20 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
- SITE CONTEXT
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A3.12

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
# DATE DESCRIPTION
PL.A3.12 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH -SITE CONTEXT PL.A3.12 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 BUILDING ELEVATION - EAST - SITE CONTEXT PL.A3.12 1/16" = 1'-0" 4 BUILDING ELEVATION - THROUGH CORPORATION YARD

22.e
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) SLOPE:
1":12"
02 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
17' - 9" (+36' - 9")
01 - SHOP FLOOR
-2' - 10 3/4" (+19' - 0")
02 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
17' - 9" (+36' - 9")
01 - SHOP FLOOR
-2' - 10 3/4" (+19' - 0")
02 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
17' - 9" (+36' - 9")
01 - SHOP FLOOR
-2' - 10 3/4" (+19' - 0")
T.O. WASH RACK
2' - 10 3/4" (+23' - 0")

PAINTED STEEL SIDING
02 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
17' - 9" (+36' - 9")
01 - SHOP FLOOR
-2' - 10 3/4" (+19' - 0")
1 A2.42
4 A2.42
3 A2.42
1 PL.A3.13
2 PL.A3.13
3 PL.A3.13
127126
128

VEHICLE LIFT

OPEN AIR

WASH RACK
(N) EMAX SILENT

AIR COMPRESSOR

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:37:23 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
- SHOP BUILDING
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A3.13

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
9 ROOF - SHOP BUILDING
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 SHOP ELEVATION - EAST
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 SHOP ELEVATION - NORTH
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 SHOP AND TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION - SOUTH
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 SHOP ELEVATION - WEST
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
5 FLOOR PLAN - SHOP BUILDING
# DATE DESCRIPTION
WALL FINISH: METAL WALL PANEL
ROOF: STANDING SEAM METAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")
02 - FLOOR
12' - 0" AFF
03 - FLAT ROOF T.O.S.
24' - 0" AFF
12 2.13 3.14 4.1568 11 12

5.1 Server - IT Print Room Wkstn -
Bookkeeper Work Area
Medium
Conference
Copy/Print/Mail
Area
Office - Lead
Meter Reader
Hallway 4 Open Work Area
- 01
DEMO 1ST AND
2ND FLOOR

EXISTING TO

REMAIN UON

TOP OF (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING

PARAPET
19' - 2" AFF
Lactation/Quiet
Room
(E) Mezzanine
01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")
02 - FLOOR
12' - 0" AFF
03 - FLAT ROOF T.O.S.
24' - 0" AFF
F
H I JE
Multipurpose
Room Medium
Conference
Public
Wellness
Room
Break Room Wkstn Meter
Reader 2
Office - Cust
Service II
Office - GM
Work Area O & M Library
Carport
PG&E Transformer

CARPORT
12' - 0" AFF

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:37:25 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

BUILDING SECTIONS
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A3.31

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A3.31 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 BUILDING SECTION - E/W
PL.A3.31 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 BUILDING SECTION - N/S
# DATE DESCRIPTION

22.e
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

GENERATOR
FUEL

STATION
STREET
LIGHT
FF: 22.60
12" RW
12" RW
6"W

RECYCLED WATER

FILL STATION
FORMER

MONITORING
WELL

ELECTRICAL AND
1" COPPER WATER

FOR FUEL STATION

SHUTOFF
FORMER

MONITORING
WELL
SDDI
RIM:18.14'
12" IN/OUT: 14.48'
SDDI
RIM:17.53'
12" SE-OUT:17.23'
DI BOTTOM:15.53' SD

OVERFLOW
RIM:17.68'
INV:16.05'
SD

OVERFLOW
RIM:18.35'

16.50'
SSCO
RIM:23.03'
INV:20.03'
SSMH
RIM:23.02'
10" E-IN:18.38'
6" N-IN:13.58'
10" W-OUT:18.06'
SSMH
RIM:19.38'
10" E-IN:13.18'
6" N-IN:13.88'
10" W-OUT:13.12'

SD VALVE
1 2"
S
D

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
C1.00
JP JT
PLAN

CONDITIONS

EXISTING

22.e
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C2.00
JP JT
PLAN

HORIZONTAL CONTROL

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C2.01
JP JT

PAVING PLAN

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C3.00
JP JT

DRAINAGE PLAN

GRADING AND

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C3.01
JP JT

DRAINAGE PLAN

GRADING AND

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) SSMH
RIM:23.02'
10" E-IN:18.38'
6" N-IN:13.58'
10" W-OUT:18.06'
C4.00
JP JT

UTILITY PLAN

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) SD

OVERFLOW
RIM:18.35'

16.50'

SD VALVE
C4.01
JP JT

UTILITY PLAN

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) SD

OVERFLOW
RIM:18.35'

16.50'

SD VALVE
C5.00
JP JT

CONTROL PLAN

STORM WATER

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C5.01
JP JT

CONTROL DETAILS

STORM WATER

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C6.00
AZ JP

CONTROL PLAN

EROSION

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C6.01
AZ JP

AND DETAILS

CONTROL NOTES

EROSION

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C6.02
JP JT

PRACTICES

BEST MANAGEMENT

SAN MATEO COUNTY

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

STORMWATER TREATMENT

PLANTER, SCD

STORMWATER TREATMENT

PLANTER, SCD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PLANTED LANDSCAPED AREA = 2,048 SF
SYMBOL ABBR. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING MATURE HEIGHT
MATURE

WIDTH WUCOLS
SALT

TOLERANT
MEL QUI MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA CAJEPUT TREE 36" BOX AS SHOWN 40' 35' VL Y PIT CRA PITTOSPORUM CRASSIFOLIUM GRAY PITTOSPORUM 36" BOX AS SHOWN 30' 15' VL Y LYO FLO LYONOTHAMNUS FLORIBUNDUS CATALINA IRONWOOD 36" BOX AS SHOWN 30' 15' VL Y TREE SCHEDULE:

SYMBOL ABBR. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING MATURE HEIGHT
MATURE

WIDTH WUCOLS
SALT

TOLERANT
RHA EVE RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'EVE CASE' EVE CASE COFFEE BERRY 15 GAL 5' O.C. 6' 6' L CHO TEC CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSH 5 GAL 4' O.C. 4' 4' L JUN PAT JUNCUS PATENS CALIFORNIA GREY RUSH 1 GAL 30" O.C. 2' 2' L ASC SPE ASCLEPIAS SPECIOSA SHOWY MILKWEED 1 GAL 3' O.C. 3' 3' L Y

STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL ABBR. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING MATURE HEIGHT
MATURE

WIDTH WUCOLS
SALT

TOLERANT
CEA SKY CEANOTHUS 'RAY HARTMAN' CALIFORNIA LILAC 15 GAL 4' O.C. 5' 6' L Y MYR CAL MYRICA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE 24 GAL 8' O.C. 15' 10' L Y RHA CAL RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LEATHERLEAF' LEATHERLEAF COFFEE BERRY 15 GAL 5' O.C. 6' 6' L Y ARC CAR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'CARMEL SUR' CARMEL SUR MANZANITA 5 GAL 3' O.C. 2' 8' L Y BAC PIG BACCHARIS PILULARIS 'PIGEON POINT' PIGEON POINT COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL 5' O.C. 18" 8' L Y ACH MIL ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM YARROW 5 GAL 18" O.C. 2' 2' L Y EPI CAN EPILOBIUM CANUM 'BERT'S BLUFF' BERT'S BLUFF CALIFORNIA FUSCHIA 5 GAL 2' O.C. 2' 3' L Y

ERI SPP ERIOGONUM SPP L Y
PLANT SCHEDULE:

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS
DRAFT! NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
JM
22007.00
02/21/22
75% DESIGN

DEVELOPMENT
# DATE DESCRIPTION
L1.00

PLANTING PLAN
0 10' 20' 40'
N
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

22.e
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) UPUP
S
MV
C S MV
C

POINT OF

CONNECTION,
SCD

IRRIGATION

CONTROLLER

POINT OF CONNECTION, SCD

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER

REMOTE CONTROL VALVES (PRESSURE REGULATING)
MEDIUM+HIGH FLOW LOW FLOW-DRIP ZONES
RAINBIRD PESB-PRS-D RAINBIRD 1ERIGATION CONTROL ZONE KITS PRESSURE REGULATING TYPE 1CZ-PRB-100-COM & 1CZ-PRB-150-COM LATERAL LINE: 1" AND LARGER, CLASS 200 PVC.

IRRIGATION LEGEND
(2) 4-STATION WEATHER BASED IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS W/ RAIN SENSOR.

INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

SLEEVE: CLASS 200 PVC, SIZE AS SHOWN

SUB-SURFACE DRIP ZONE
RAINBIRD 1FS-09-12 SUB-SURFACE DRIP LINE (12" EMITTER SPACING) W/ RB 1FS DRIP SYSTEM OPERATION INDICATOR AT END OF EACH DRIP ZONE.

LINE SPACING TO BE COORDINATED WITH PLANT SPACING (12", 18" & 24" O.C.) *INSTALL TWO DRIP EMMITTERS AT ROOTBALL FOR SHRUBS SPACED GREATER THAN 24" O.C.

ROOT WATERING SYSTEM
2 HALF GALLON BUBBLERS PER TREE

GATE VALVE
NIBCO T113-IRR (LINE SIZE)
QUICK COUPLING VALVE:

RAINBIRD 5-LRC, BRASS, LOCKING COVER, 1-PIECE BODY

CONTROLLER / STATION NUMBER

FLOW RATE (GPM)

VALVE SIZE (INCHES)
C
MAINLINE: SCH 40 PVC, 4" AND SMALLER

FLOW SENSOR

CTS FLOW SENSOR (SIZE PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND FLOW RANGE OF IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE ZONES).

MASTER VALVE

LINE SIZE, BRASS, GRISWOLD, NORMALLY OPEN
S
MV

BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE, SEE CIVIL

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS
DRAFT! NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
JM
22007.00
02/21/22
75% DESIGN

DEVELOPMENT
# DATE DESCRIPTION
L2.00

IRRIGATION PLAN
0 10' 20' 40'
N
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

22.e
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) SWBD "MSA" - VOLTAGE DROP CALCULATIONS
NAME VOLTAGE PHASE AMPERAGE CABLE SIZE CONDUIT SIZE LENGTH (Ft) VOLTAGE DROP %VOLTAGE DROP SWBD "1DPA" 208V/120V 3PH 800 A 2 SETS of 4# 600KCMIL + 1 #1/0 G (2) 4" C 198 2.97 Volts 1.43% PANEL "1SA" 208V/120V 3PH 200 A (4) #3/0 AWG +1#6 G 2" C 145 3.85 Volts 1.85%

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE

1. SECTION 5.106.8 - LIGHT POLLUTION REDUCTION.

OUTDOOR LIGHTING SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING:
1) THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE FOR LIGHTING ZONES 1-4 AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 10 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. 2) BACKLIGHT, UPLIGHT AND GLARE (BUG) RATINGS AS DEFINED IN IESNA TM-15-11; 3) ALLOWABLE BUG RATINGS NOT EXCEEDING THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 5.106.8 OR COMPLY WITH A LOCAL ORDINANCE LAWFULLY ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 101.7, WHICHEVER IS MORE STRINGENT.

2. SECTION 5.505.1 - ENERGY EFFICIENCY

BUILDING SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), TITLE 24 - AS SHOWN IN THE ELECTRICAL TITLE 24 FORMS.

3. SECTION 5.410.4 - TESTING AND ADJUSTING

CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TESTING AND ADJUSTING SHALL PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CCR, TITLE 24, SECTION 130.4 - AS SHOWN IN THE ELECTRICAL TITLE 24 FORMS.

4. SECTION 5.410.4.3 - PROCEDURES

CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM TESTING AND ADJUSTING PROCEDURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH

MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS ON EACH SYSTEM - AS SHOWN IN THE ELECTRICAL TITLE 24 FORMS.

5. SECTION 5.410.4.4 - REPORTING

CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A FINAL REPORT OF TESTING SIGNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR PERFORMING THESE SERVICES.

6. SECTION 5.410.4.5 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) MANUAL

CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE BUILDING OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE WITH A DETAILED O&M INSTRUCTIONS AND COPIES OF GUARANTIES/WARRANTIES FOR EACH SYSTEM. O&M INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH OSHA REQUIREMENTS IN CCR, TITLE 8, SECTION 5142, AND OTHER RELATED REGULATIONS.

7. SECTION 5.410.4.5.1 - INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS

CONTRACTOR SHALL INCLUDE A COPY OF ALL INSPECTIONS VERIFICATIONS AND REPORTS REQUIRED BY THE ENFORCING AGENCY.

TYPE DESCRIPTION LOCATION VOLT
LED
LUMEN
OUTPUT

CCT / CRI WATTS
BUG
RATING
MOUNTING MANUFACTURER'S & CATALOG #
E1 ARCHITECTURAL LED WALL SCONCE, WITH INTEGRAL

MOTION SENSOR AND PHOTOCELL SENSOR FOR
PART-NIGHT CONTROLS.

OFFICE BUILDING

EXTERIOR
120V 1922 LM 3000K / 80 19 W B1
U0
G1

SURFACE LITHONIA LIGHTING
WDGE2LED-P2-30K-80CRI-T2M-MVOLT-PIR1FC3V
E2A ARCHITECTURAL LED WALL SCONCE, WITH INTEGRAL

MOTION SENSOR AND PHOTOCELL SENSOR FOR
PART-NIGHT CONTROLS.

OFFICE BUILDING

EXTERIOR STAIRWELL
120V 6922 LM 3000K / 80 52 W B1
U0
G2

SURFACE LITHONIA LIGHTING
WDGE3LED-P1-30K-80CRI-R3-MVOLT-PIR1HFC3V
E2B SIMILAR TO TYPE E2A, EXCEPT WITH TYPE 4

DISTRIBUTION

SHOP AND MAINTENANCE

BUILDING EXTERIOR YARD
120V 6922 LM 3000K / 80 52 W B1
U0
G2

SURFACE LITHONIA LIGHTING
WDGE3LED-P1-30K-80CRI-R4-MVOLT-PIRH1FC3V
E2C ARCHITECTURAL LED WALL SCONCE, WITH INTEGRAL

MOTION SENSOR AND PHOTOCELL SENSOR FOR
PART-NIGHT CONTROLS.

MAINTENANCE BUILDING

EXTERIOR STREET
120V 6922 LM 3000K / 80 50 W B1
U0
G1

SURFACE
+17' AFG.

LITHONIA LIGHTING
WSTLED-P3-30K-VF-MVOLT-PIRH1FC3V
E3 5" SQUARE DOWNLIGHT. OFFICE EXTERIOR CANOPY 120V 924 LM 3000K / 80 13 W B1 U0
G0

SURFACE

CEILING

LUMINIS LIGHTING
SQ510-L1L10-R30-120V-K3
E4 AREA LIGHTING LED, WITH INTEGRAL MOTION

SENSOR AND PHOTOCELL SENSOR FOR PART-NIGHT
CONTROLS, WITH HOUSE-SIDE-SHIELD. PROVIDE
WITH 18' SQUARE STRAIGHT POLE.

EXTERIOR YARD 120V 4910 LM 3000K / 80 54 W B1
U0
G2

POLE-MOUNTED
+20' AFG.

LITHONIA LIGHTING
DSX0 LED-P1-30K-T4M-MVOLT-HS
E5 SOLAR CARPORT LED, WITH INTEGRAL MOTION

SENSOR AND PHOTOCELL SENSOR FOR PART NIGHT
CONTROLS.

SOLAR CARPORT YARD 120V 3592 LM 3000K / 80 27 W N/A HOOK AND CORD +9' AFG

LITHONIA LIGHTING
VCVL LED-V4-P1-30K-80CRI-T5W-MVOLT-PIR3FCV
E6 LED WALLWASH FIXTURE, 0-10V DIMMABLE
ELECTRONIC DRIVER, WET LOCATION LISTED.

EXTERIOR SIGNAGE

PLANTER AREA
120V TBD TBD TBD N/A PLANTER ECOSENSE LIGHTING
TROV
TBD
CALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURES [ALTERATION]

REGISTERED PROF

ESSIONAL ENGINEER
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA
ELECT
RICA L
KENNY
Exp.

E 22687
03-21-23 MARINA
1133 POST STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109
TELEPHONE (415) 474-9500
FAX (415) 474-1363
GAYNER

ENGINEERS

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
8/30/2022 10:25:05 AM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District_E_v20.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

ELECTRICAL EXTERIOR

FIXTURE SCHEDULE
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/2022
E0.03
90% CONSTRUCTION

DOCUMENTS
# DATE DESCRIPTION

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) NO

PARKING

VEHICLE LIFT
1214 SF
New
Prefabricated
Metal Shop
Building
02-06
32-01 02-03
26-02
26-01
03-01
12-01
02-09
32-02
32-02
32-03
02-10
26-03
10-02
10-01
2 45
78 12 11 10 1
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16

DECK AT SECOND
FLOOR
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
A
D
A
/EV
P
A
RKIN
G
P
A
R
KIN
GP
A
R
KIN
G

PARKING

RECYCLED

WATER REFILL

STATION
NEW SHOP 25'
x 55'

RECYCLED
WATER

PULL-THROUGH

VEHICLE WASH
RACK - 20' x 32'

TRASH &

RECYCLING

ENCLOSURE

ENTRANCE

PROPERTY LINE

BRIGHTON RD

CLARENDON RD
UP
14 AC
6 8
F
HI 7
11 12
15 J
1 2
3 4
5 VWXYZ

2.1 3.1 4.1

5.1 13
E
10 G
9 003.2
003.1
001
100.1
130
1 A4.11
1 A4.21
6 A4.11
1 A8.72
1 A4.13
17 A2.52
18 A2.52 2A3.11
4 A3.11
3A3.1
1 1
A3.11
1 A3.31
________ _
4 A3.31
________ _
5 A3.31
________ _
3 A3.31
________ _
6 A3.31
________ _
2D3.1
1 4
D3.11
3 D

3.1 1
1 D3.11
11-05 Unisex
Shower/
Changing
106
MPOE
CLOSET
130

BRIGHTON ROAD

FRANCISCO BLVD
(E) GATE

PLANTER

PLANTER
NEW

CONSTRUCTION

EXISTING TO

REMAIN UON
UP
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
SSCO
SD

OVERFLOW
RIM:18.35'

16.50'

SD VALVE
WV
WV WV
FDC
WM
WV
CO
CO
CO
CO

RECYCLED

WATER REFILL

STATION
NEW SHOP 25'
x 55'

RECYCLED
WATER

PULL-THROUGH

VEHICLE WASH
RACK - 20' x 32'

TRASH &

RECYCLING

ENCLOSURE

FRANCISCO BLVD

BRIGHTON RD

CLARENDON RD
23456789
10 1
E2C E2C E2C
E1 E1 E1
E1
E1
E3
E1
E1
E1 E1
E2B E2B E2B
E2B
E2B
E2B
E2B E2B
E2B
E2B
E4A
E4A
E4A
E4A
E4A
E5
E5
E5
E2A
E1
E3
E6
E2A
E4A
1AEA-3 1AEA-3 1AEA-3
1AEA-3 1AEA-3 1AEA
-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3 1AEA
-3 1AEA-3
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
E3
E3

REGISTERED PROF

ESSIONAL ENGINEER
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA
ELECT
RICA L
KENNY
Exp.

E 22687
03-21-23 MARINA
1133 POST STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109
TELEPHONE (415) 474-9500
FAX (415) 474-1363
GAYNER

ENGINEERS

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
8/30/2022 10:24:04 AM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District_E_v20.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

ELECTRICAL LIGHTING

PLAN - SITE
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/2022
E1.02
90% CONSTRUCTION

DOCUMENTS
E1.02 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 01 - SITE - LTG
SHEET NOTES:

GENERAL NOTES:
1 LIGHTING IN LANDSCAPE AREA TO ILLUMINATE SIGNAGE.

1. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION DETAILS FOR EXACT MOUNTING HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS.

2. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF SITE WORK.

3. USE #10 AWG THWN-2 CU MINIMUM FOR SITE LIGHTING AND POWER.

4. WORK SHOWN ON THE ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC. FIELD

VERIFY EXACT LOCATION, ROUTING AND PROVIDE SITE PULLBOXES AS REQUIRED. ADJUST LOCATION +/- 6' AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. 1 # DATE DESCRIPTION

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.e
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 637
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 638
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 639
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 640
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 641
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 642
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 643
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 644
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 645
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 646
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 647
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 652
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 653
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 654
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 655
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 656
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 657
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 658
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 659
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 661
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 662
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 663
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.f
Packet Pg. 664
Attachment: Attachment F - Appeal Form and Letter (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 1
January 10, 2023
Project No. 622114
Adrianne Carr, Ph.D.

General Manager
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacífica, CA 94044
T: 650-3553462
E: [email protected]
RE: NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS

PROJECT TRAFFIC EVALUATION

PACIFICA, CA
Dear Adrianne,
At the request of the North Coast County Water District (District), we have performed a traffic evaluation for the new District Headquarters. This evaluation focuses on the following specific elements:
• Evaluation of Francisco Blvd / Brighton Rd including an All-way Stop Control Warrant • Roadway / Parking Layout of Francisco Blvd along Headquarters frontage The following report presents the evaluation and resulting findings / recommendations for each of the two elements.

All Way Stop Warrant
Primary Warrants
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) Section 2B.07 provides a set of guidelines that can be used to determine the appropriateness of installing an all-way stop condition at an intersection. The primary warrants listed for installing all-way stop control include:

A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.

B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.

C. Minimum volumes:

1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and

2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but

22.g
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 2

3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2.

D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.

Primary Warrant A (Interim Condition)
Primary Warrant A is specifically targeted toward intersections where signalization is either under consideration or is already planned for future installation. Signalization has not been planned or considered at the project intersection meaning Primary Warrant A is not applicable.

Primary Warrant B (Crash History)
The crash history warrant is aimed at reducing the frequency of crashes at an intersection via the installation of all-way stop control. To analyze this warrant, collision records for a five-year period (01/01/2018- 01/01/2023) were collected from the California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Between 2018 and 2023 there were three collisions recorded at the intersection including two sideswipes with a parked vehicle and one collision with a fixed object. None of these collision types are considered to be susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. The frequency of crashes is also far below the five crashes within a 12-month period threshold specified in the warrant. For this reason, Primary Warrant B was not satisfied.

Primary Warrant C (Minimum Volumes)
Primary Warrant C analyzes whether traffic volumes and/or vehicle delay warrant the installation of all-way stop control.

Traffic counts were collected on 08/03/22 (Wednesday) from 7:00AM-9:00AM and 4:00PM-6:00PM. This was assumed to capture the peak AM and PM traffic volume periods respectively at the intersection. These counts were utilized to analyze minimum traffic volumes. The full traffic count data can be found in the appendix of this report.

From the combined 4 hours of AM and PM peak period data, the average hourly traffic along Francisco Blvd (both directions) was found to be 194 veh/hr. This is below the required 300 veh/hr threshold. Additionally, because the collected data represents the peak period traffic conditions, it was assumed that traffic volumes outside of this range are also at or below 194 veh/hr. As a result, Primary warrant C.1 was not satisfied.

Primary Warrant C.1 and C.2 must both be met to be satisfied. Because Primary Warrant C.1 was not satisfied, Primary Warrant C.2 was not analyzed.

The 85th percentile speed along Francisco Blvd was determined to be 32 mph. Primary Warrant C.3 was found not applicable because the 85th percent speed is below the 40 MPH threshold of Warrant C.3.

Primary Warrant D (Combined Criteria)
Primary Warrant D pertains to Primary Warrant B and C being satisfied in combination while only requiring each to meet 80% of their stated values.

For Primary Warrant B, the 80% value equates to 4 crashes within a 12-month period. For the highest frequency 12-month period only 2 crashes were reported at the intersection, both of which are not considered to be susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. As a result, Primary Warrant D was deemed to be not applicable, and it was not necessary to reanalyze Primary Warrant C to 80% values.

22.g
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 3
Optional Warrants
Section 2B.07 of the CAMUTCD also lists several optional considerations including:

A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection.

Optional Warrant A (Left-Turn Conflicts)
All-way stop control may be warranted at an intersection if there are significant left-turn conflicts. SWITRS crash history for the five-year period was consulted to determine if there appears to be any left turn conflict present at the intersection. Over the five-year period, none of the reported crashes involved a left turn movement. For this reason, Optional Warrant A was not deemed to be satisfied.

Optional Warrant B (Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflicts)
Optional Warrant B examines whether there are significant pedestrian conflicts across the uncontrolled approaches of the intersection. There are no crosswalks across Francisco Blvd and no pedestrian destinations on the east side of Francisco Blvd to generate any crossing pedestrian traffic. Optional Warrant B was deemed not satisfied because there does not appear to be a significant pedestrian conflict for the currently uncontrolled Francisco Blvd approaches.

Optional Warrant C (Line of Sight)
Optional Warrant C examines whether line-of-sight limitations restrict a driver’s ability to navigate the intersection and avoid conflicting vehicle traffic safely. Because the Francisco Blvd approaches are uncontrolled, and the Brighton Rd approach is stop controlled the only condition analyzed was drivers entering the intersection from the Brighton Rd approach.

The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (HDM) section 405.1 provides guidance regarding intersection Corner sight distance.

The 85th percentile speed (32 MPH) was used as the design speed and the design vehicle was assumed to be a passenger vehicle.

The HDM methodology resulted in the required sight distance to be 305’ for vehicles approaching from the left on SB Francisco Blvd and 355’ for vehicles approaching from the right on NB Francisco Blvd. However, the allway stop-controlled intersection of Clarendon Rd and Francisco Blvd is only 240’ from the decision point at the project intersection. Because all vehicles come to a complete stop at the Clarendon Rd and Francisco Blvd intersection, it was assumed that the line of sight only needs to extend to the edge of this intersection (240’).

Exhibit 1 shows the resulting line of sight with the proposed site development shown for reference. For vehicles to safely enter uncontrolled Francisco Blvd, 215’ of clear space is required along the curb line to the north of the intersection and 100’ of clear space is required along the curb line to the south of the intersection.

This would result in the removal of approximately six existing parallel parking spaces to the north of the

22.g
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 4
intersection and approximately three proposed parallel parking stalls to the south of the intersection.

Removing this parking would require public outreach and is assumed to receive community pushback. The line of sight is not sufficient without the removal of parking and would require additional analysis and outreach. Optional warrant C is considered to be satisfied due to the line-of-sight limitations as this project does not propose to remove or limit existing roadway parking.

Optional Warrant D (Intersection of Two Collectors)
Optional Warrant D examines locations where two similar Residential collector roadways intersect. According to the City of Pacifica General plan dated May 2022, Francisco Blvd is classified as a collector, and Brighton Rd is classified as a local street. Because Brighton Rd is not a collector or through street, Optional Warrant D is not satisfied.

Summary and Recommendations
Table 1 summarizes the results of each All-Way Stop Control warrant that was examined. Optional Warrant C (Line of Sight) was found to be satisfied due to line-of-sight limitations. Given our understanding of parking demand near the Project extents, review of the surrounding roadway / traffic environment and Optional Warrant C being satisfied, we recommend all-way stop control be implemented at the Francisco Blvd and Brighton Rd intersection.

Table 1: All-Way Stop Warrant Results
Primary Warrants
Letter Criteria Satisfied
A Interim Condition (Before Signalization) Not Applicable B Crash History No
C.1 Major Street Volumes No
C.2 Minor Street Volumes No
C.3 Reduced Thresholds for Roadways Exceeding 40 MPH Travel Speeds Not Applicable
D Combined 80% Criteria for B, C.1 & C.2 together (C.3 not applicable) No
Optional Warrants
Letter Criteria Satisfied
A Left-Turn Conflicts No
B Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflicts No
C Line of Sight Yes
D Intersection of two Residential Collectors (through) Streets Not Applicable

22.g
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 5
Francisco Boulevard Parking / Lane Configuration
Overview
The proposed District Headquarters project intends to improve the project frontages along Francisco Blvd, Clarendon Rd and Brighton Rd. As part of these improvements, new sidewalk/landscaping will be constructed along with parking facilities adjacent to the roadway. The project is currently proposing parallel parking along the Clarendon and Brighton Rd frontages and a combination of parallel and diagonal parking along the Francisco Blvd frontage.

As part of this study, Sandis evaluated the overall roadway layout on Francisco to determine whether diagonal parking is feasible within the current roadway extents of Francisco Blvd. The proposed layout shows a 4.8 ft wide sidewalk, 19.9 ft wide 45-degree parking area, and 12 ft wide lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions. In order to determine if this configuration is adequate from a circulation standpoint, Sandis performed an analysis using the Autoturn program. Refer to Exhibit 2, Diagonal Parking Exhibit, which shows the movement of a vehicle exiting one of the diagonal stalls and then traveling southbound on Francisco Blvd. As indicated on, a vehicle can stay within the southbound lane extents when backing out and turning to travel southbound.

Summary and Recommendations
Based on our review of the proposed parking and travel lane layout, we believe that the diagonal parking configuration is acceptable and does not create a safety concern. Maintaining the 12 ft wide travel lanes and installing a center lane stripe will promote traffic calming and encourage vehicles to travel at slower speeds between the Brighton and Clarendon Rd intersections.

Please contact me at [email protected] with any questions or should you require additional information.

Regards,
Ronald Sanzo, PE, TE, PTOE
Director of Engineering
Attachments: Traffic Count Data, Exhibit 1 – Line of Sight Exhibit, Exhibit 2 – Diagonal Parking Exhibit

22.g
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 22-080222-001 Day:

City: Pacifica Date:

AM 2 88 0 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 8 185 0 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 000
0 000
000 00 000
404 0 TEV 149 0 330 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.83 0.90
3 0 11 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 8 114 0 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 4 48 0 AM
0 NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM 118
Francisco Blvd & Brighton Rd
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Francisco Blvd Wednesday
SOUTHBOUND 8/3/2022

PEAK HOURS
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 52 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
000
Totals (AM) 196 Total Bikes (AM)
Brighton Rd

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Brighton Rd
6 0 16

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(EB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 91

NORTHBOUND
Francisco Blvd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
1 0
6 1
0 2
00 000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00 000 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
010
000
0 0
11 0
0 4
81850
81140
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
3 0
0 4
2880
4480

22.g
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Francisco Blvd & Brighton Rd
City: Pacifica Project ID:

Control: 1-Way Stop(EB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0000000000000000

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0200061010100000 11
7:15 AM 0000031010000000 5
7:30 AM 1 4 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 20
7:45 AM 1 3 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
8:00 AM 2 14 0 0 0 22 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 45
8:15 AM 0 14 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
8:30 AM 1 8 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
8:45 AM 1 12 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 30

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 6 57 0 0 0 118 6 0 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 201
APPROACH %'s : 9.52% 90.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 95.16% 4.84% 0.00% 42.86% 0.00% 57.14% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:00 AM 41 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 48 0 0 0 88 2 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 149
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.857 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.759 0.250 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0000000000000000

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 2 25 0 0 0 44 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 74
4:15 PM 2 25 0 0 0 40 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 71
4:30 PM 2 25 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 64
4:45 PM 1 24 0 0 0 44 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73
5:00 PM 1 29 0 0 0 55 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 92
5:15 PM 2 30 0 0 0 54 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 90
5:30 PM 4 17 0 0 0 34 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 64
5:45 PM 1 38 0 0 0 42 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 84

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 15 213 0 0 0 348 13 0 7 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 612 APPROACH %'s : 6.58% 93.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 96.40% 3.60% 0.00% 30.43% 0.00% 69.57% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:00 PM 293 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 8 114 0 0 0 185 8 0 4 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 330
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.841 0.500 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.550 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22-080222-001
8/3/2022
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM

0.897 0.782 0.846 0.750
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM

0.828

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.813 0.776 0.350

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Totals
Francisco Blvd Francisco Blvd Brighton Rd Brighton Rd

22.g
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Day: City: Pacifica
Date: Project #: CA22_080223_001
Time < 15 15 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 24 25 ‐ 29 30 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 39 40 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 49 50 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 59 60 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 69 70 + Total 00:00 AM 2025200000000 11
01:00 0003402000000 9
02:00 0014200000000 7
03:00 0005100000000 6
04:00 1010210000000 5
05:00 2 1 2 12 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
06:00 7 3 8 20 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45
07:00 15 4 13 21 25 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
08:00 10 4 31 28 27 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 109
09:00 14 5 21 64 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135
10:00 11 4 44 76 38 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
11:00 17 5 53 88 37 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 203
12:00 PM 11 9 38 85 48 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196
13:00 17 9 45 78 39 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193
14:00 11 7 52 73 47 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 198
15:00 14 11 50 105 47 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 228
16:00 9 10 78 123 52 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 283
17:00 16 17 66 131 66 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299
18:00 12 4 44 122 52 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235
19:00 7 6 30 74 44 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172
20:00 3 2 25 54 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118
21:00 1 2 15 39 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71
22:00 0 0 8 20 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
23:00 1029810000000 21
181 103 629 1239 626 72 11 2861
6% 4% 22% 43% 22% 3% 0% 100%
79 26 176 326 179 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 812
3% 1% 6% 11% 6% 1% 0% 28%
11:00 09:00 11:00 11:00 10:00 08:00 01:00             11:00 17 5 53 88 38 8 2             203
102 77 453 913 447 51 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2049
4% 3% 16% 32% 16% 2% 0% 72%
13:00 17:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 19:00 14:00 17:00
17 17 78 131 66 11 3             299
AM 7‐9 NOON 12‐2 PM 4‐6 Off Peak Volumes
Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume %
189 7% 389 14% 582 20% 1701 59%
Summary
ADT
2861
Percentiles Street Name
Francisco Blvd
85th
32 95th
35 50th
27 Average
26 15th  Direction
21 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Francisco Blvd N/O Brighton Rd
8/3/2022
Summary
Totals
% of Totals
AM Volumes
% AM
AM Peak Hour
All Speeds
Wednesday
Volume
PM Volumes
% PM
PM Peak Hour
Volume
Directional Peak Periods

22.g
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

NO PARKING
0'
1 INCH =
8' 20' 40' 80'
40 FT

22.g
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 0'
1 INCH =
4' 10' 20' 40'
20 FT
sandis.net
build on.

22.g
Packet Pg. 674
Attachment: Attachment G - Sandis Traffic Evaluation (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) March 20, 2023
Adrianne Carr
General Manager
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
SUBJECT: NCCWD Headquarters Project
Proposed Angled Parking
Dear Ms. Carr:

The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department is sending this letter in response to the proposed angled parking located on Francisco Boulevard adjacent to the North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) Headquarters Project at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (Project). As you know, one of the design elements of the proposed Project is angled parking. The City’s Engineering Department provided comments on the Project on April 5th, July 11th, and September 22nd 2022 recommending the elimination of the proposed angled parking along Francisco Boulevard because angled parking would create traffic safety hazards on Francisco Boulevard.

Moreover, allowing angled parking would conflict with City’s right-of-way uses and goals. The Engineering Division again requests that the angled parking be eliminated from the Project.

NCCWD submitted a Project Traffic Evaluation and Trip Generation Analysis (Project Traffic Evaluation) to analyze the angled parking proposal. The Project Traffic Evaluation studied a stop sign at Francisco Boulevard and Brighton Road intersection and the feasibility of backing out of an angled parking space onto Francisco Boulevard without entering the southbound lane.

As is typical, the Engineering Division contracted with Fehr & Peers, a well-known traffic engineering firm in the Bay Area, to perform a peer review of the Project Traffic Evaluation. Fehr & Peers disagrees with the determinations contained in the Project Traffic Evaluation and recommends against installing both the angled parking as well as the proposed all-way stop sign on Francisco and Brighton.

As set forth in the attached report prepared by Fehr & Peers, the following traffic safety issues were identified:
• Angled parking has a higher crash rate and frequency and should never be considered when on-street parking is sufficient. The City’s Sharp Park Specific Plan study of parking in the area showed adequate on-street parking in the area. • The vehicle overhang on to the sidewalk from the proposed angled parking will narrow the sidewalk potentially making it impassable for a wheelchair.
• Back-in parking is not feasible in the area given the proximity of the parking spaces to Clarendon Road because of the conflicts between the queued vehicles waiting at stop sign and the cars backing into the angled parking. • The request for an all-way stop at Francisco and Brighton does not meet any of the necessary criteria (warrants) required by the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

In addition to the traffic safety issues identified by Fehr & Peers, angled parking on Francisco does not align with City’s right-of-way uses and multi-modal goals of the City. NCCWD wants angled parking to provide more parking for board members and visitors to the proposed expanded NCCWD facility. However, the right-of-way is available for all public use and cannot be reserved for NCCWD.

Additionally, previous parking studies prepared for the Sharp Park Specific Plan, which studied parking availability in the Project area, found there to be adequate on-street parking in the area. Finally, as set forth in the City’s adopted General Plan, the City also has broader

CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Tygarjas Bigstyck

MAYOR PRO TEM
Sue Vaterlaus

COUNCIL
Sue Beckmeyer
Mary Bier
Christine Boles Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957

22.h
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment H - Letter from City of Pacifica Public Works re: Proposed Angled Parking from March 20, 2023 with Fehr & Peers goals to transition Francisco Boulevard to support multi-model users. The General Plan’s Circulation Element Table 5-3 indicates that on collector streets, as Francisco Boulevard is designated, three modes of transportation shall have priority: bicycles, pedestrians, and automobiles shall be accommodated and no mode shall dominate. As a result the installation of the angled parking on Francisco Boulevard would prevent the installation of any future bike lanes and an effective clear pedestrian path on the sidewalk.

Due to the safety issues identified herein and highlighted by Fehr & Peers, and adverse impacts to multi-modal use of the public rightof-way, the Engineering Division intends to recommend that the Planning Commission condition any approval of the Project on elimination of both the proposed angled parking along Francisco Boulevard; and the all-way stop sign at Francisco and Brighton from the Project.

It is always the goal of Engineering Division staff to resolve disagreements with applicants in a mutually satisfactory way prior to a public hearing. With that in mind, the Engineering Division encourages you to remove the angled parking from your proposed Project plans prior to an upcoming public hearing on the Project. Doing so would enable the Engineering Division to make a recommendation of approval on the Project as proposed by NCCWD. Without any such revision to the Project description, we will be proposing eliminating the two items referenced above from the Project. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Roland Yip
Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Attachment: Fehr & Peers Peer Review
C: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Lisa Petersen, Director of Public Works
Christian Murdock, Planning Director
Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

22.h
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Attachment H - Letter from City of Pacifica Public Works re: Proposed Angled Parking from March 20, 2023 with Fehr & Peers 345 California Street | Suite 450 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: February 14, 2023
To: Roland Yip and Raymund Donguines, City of Pacifica
From: Bob Grandy
Subject: Peer Review for Traffic Evaluation for North Coast County Water District HQ SF23-1284.01
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a peer review of the January 10, 2023 Traffic Evaluation prepared by Sandis for the North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) Headquarters Project in the City of Pacifica.

The NCCWD project would result in an expansion of the existing 9,315 square-foot building and maintenance buildings to a 11,460 square foot facility. The existing NCCWD headquarters has up to 20 employees, ten to 12 daily visitors, and one daily delivery, each of which would not change under the proposed expansion in floor area.1
The January 10, 2023 Traffic Evaluation evaluates and presents findings for two proposed elements of the project.
• Modification of the Francisco Boulevard frontage to convert existing parallel parking to diagonal parking
• Installation of an All-way Stop Control at the intersection of Francisco Boulevard/Brighton Road
Modification of Francisco Boulevard Frontage
The proposed modification of the Francisco Boulevard frontage would convert a portion of the existing parallel parking on Francisco Boulevard to diagonal parking. Table 1 provides a summary of on-street and off-street parking supply under existing and future conditions. 1 “Trip Generation Analysis for the North Coast County Water District Headquarters Upgrade Project”, W-Trans, May 24, 2022.

22.h
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Attachment H - Letter from City of Pacifica Public Works re: Proposed Angled Parking from March 20, 2023 with Fehr & Peers Roland Yip and Raymund Donguines
City of Pacifica
February 14, 2023

The Francisco Boulevard frontage of the NCCWD facility has a curb length of approximately 200 feet. A fenced driveway that appears to be permanently closed is located at approximately the mid-point of the frontage. The approximately 80 foot of curb between Brighton Road and the driveway is marked green for short-term parking and could accommodate up to four vehicles. The approximately 100 foot of curb between the driveway and Clarendon Road has a single marked space reserved for oversize vehicle parking. Between the oversize vehicle parking space and the driveway is unmarked curb that could accommodate up to three vehicles. The Francisco Boulevard frontage currently can thus accommodate up to four vehicles in the short-term parking area, three vehicles in the unmarked parking area, and one oversize vehicle. The Brighton Road frontage of the NCCWD facility currently has a curb length of approximately 130 feet that could accommodate up to six vehicles with one marked accessible space. The Clarendon Road frontage of the NCCWD facility currently has a curb length of approximately 45 feet, west of the existing bus stop zone, that could accommodate up to two vehicles.

The proposed modification to the Francisco Boulevard frontage would provide a total of three parallel parking spaces and seven angled parking spaces, for a total of 10 parking spaces. This would result in an increase of two parking spaces over the current frontage configuration.

The Traffic Evaluation does not state the purpose of the proposed modification to the Francisco Boulevard frontage, but it is presumed to be due to the fact that the modification of the existing facility buildings and maintenance yard would result in a reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces from 13 to 11 spaces, for a net loss of two parking spaces.2 Field observations of the site conducted during the early afternoon of Thursday, February 9, 2023 indicated that only one vehicle was parked along the project frontages on Francisco Boulevard, Brighton Road, and Clarendon Road. With the proposed curb designations, up to 18 vehicles can park on-street (15 standard vehicles, one handicapped space, and one space reserved for an oversized vehicle) along the project frontages.

The proposed angled parking on the Francisco Boulevard frontage would present the following transportation issues.
 Parallel parking is preferable to angled parking as research has shown that angled parking has a higher crash rate and frequency. Where the supply of parking is sufficient, researchers have concluded that the conversion of on-street parking from parallel to angle should not be considered.3
 The existing sidewalk along the Francisco Boulevard frontage where the angled parking is proposed is approximately six feet wide between the curb and the parking lot fence. The 2 North Coast County Water District Planning Package, Noll & Tam Architects, 6/17/22. 3 Safety Comparison of Angle and Parallel Parking, Oregon Department of Transportation Traffic Management Section, March 15, 2001.

22.h
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Attachment H - Letter from City of Pacifica Public Works re: Proposed Angled Parking from March 20, 2023 with Fehr & Peers Roland Yip and Raymund Donguines
City of Pacifica
February 14, 2023

proposed plan for the angled parking shows five feet between the parking lot fence and the edge of the nearest part of the angled parking space. Vehicles parking in the angled parking spaces would overhang the end of the front curb of the angled space, however, thus reducing the effective clear width of the sidewalk, potentially making it impassible for a person in a wheelchair. It could also reduce the overall quality of the pedestrian environment in the area.
 Concerns about conflicts between parked vehicles exiting angled parking spaces and cyclists traveling in the travel lane, due to limited visibility of the vehicle driver to the rear, have resulted in cities replacing or installing back-in angled parking spaces instead of angled parking spaces to improve visibility and increase the driver field of vision. Back-in angled parking would not be feasible at the project site given the proximity of the parking spaces to Clarendon Road.

The peak parking demand for the NCCWD facility is estimated to be 22 parking spaces, assuming that 90 percent of employees and four of the 12 daily visitors drive and are parked during the peak hour which is estimated to occur on a weekday between 10 am and 2 pm.

The estimated peak parking demand of 22 vehicles could be accommodated by the proposed 11 off-street parking spaces and the existing 16 on-street parking spaces on the project frontages based on the existing parallel parking configurations. The planned elimination of the driveway on Francisco Boulevard would add one on-street space to the existing frontage supply with parallel parking, resulting in a total of 28 on-street and off-street parking spaces.

Table 1: Parking Supply Comparison

PARKING LOCATION

EXISTING

CONDITIONS

PROPOSED PROJECT

W/ ANGLED PARKING ON
FRANCISCO BLVD.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

W/ PARALLEL PARKING
ON FRANCISCO BLVD.

OFF-STREET PARKING (NCCWD) 13 112 112
SUBTOTAL OFF-STREET 13 11 11

ON-STREET PARKING
FRANCISCO BLVD. 81 10 91
BRIGHTON RD. 62 62 62
CLARENDON RD. 2 2 2
SUBTOTAL ON-STREET 16 18 17
TOTAL 29 29 28
Source: Fehr & Peers
Notes:

1. Supply includes parking for one oversized vehicle.

2. Supply includes one marked accessible stall.

22.h
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Attachment H - Letter from City of Pacifica Public Works re: Proposed Angled Parking from March 20, 2023 with Fehr & Peers Roland Yip and Raymund Donguines
City of Pacifica
February 14, 2023

Based on the above review, we recommend that angled parking not be installed along the Francisco Boulevard frontage and that the existing parallel parking configuration be retained.

Installation of All-way Stop Control
The applicability of an All-way Stop Control at the intersection of Francisco Boulevard/Brighton Road is based on a review of warrants in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD). The California MUTCD is published by Caltrans and is issued to adopt uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California, in accordance with Section 21400 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC).

The California MUTCD provides the following guidance regarding the use of signs.  Regulatory and warning signs should be used conservatively because these signs, if used to excess, lose their effectiveness.

Section 2B.07 of the California MUTCD provides the following context for the location of multiway stop applications.  Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal.

Section 2B.07 of the CA MUTCD indicates that installation of a multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study and that the following four criteria should be considered.  Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure while arrangements for installing a signal are made.
 Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period
 Minimum vehicle, pedestrian, and or bicycle volumes
 Combination of the above criteria
The January 10, 2023 Traffic Evaluation prepared by Sandis concludes that none of the above warrants for a multi-way stop control is met and we concur.

Section 2B.07 of the CA MUTCD indicates that four other criteria may be considered in an engineering study.
 Need to control left-turn conflicts
 Need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts

22.h
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Attachment H - Letter from City of Pacifica Public Works re: Proposed Angled Parking from March 20, 2023 with Fehr & Peers Roland Yip and Raymund Donguines
City of Pacifica
February 14, 2023

 Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflict traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop  An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection
The January 10, 2023 Traffic Evaluation prepared by Sandis concludes that the third optional consideration is met based on a line of sight exhibit and recommends installation of a multi-way stop control based on this assessment. The line of sight assessment is based on application of the intersection corner sight distance in section 405.1 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) and an 85th percentile speed of 32 miles per hour based on data collected north of the Francisco Boulevard/Brighton Road intersection. The sight triangles are set based on the driver being located 18.8 feet back from the edge of traveled way. The HDM indicates that the setback for the driver of the vehicle on the minor road should be a minimum of 10 feet plus the shoulder width of the major road but not less than 15 feet. With the proposed installation of the curb on the southwest corner of the intersection, vehicles stopping on Brighton Road would be able to stop closer to the edge of traveled way of Francisco Boulevard than the 18.8 feet of distance applied in the line of sight assessment, reducing the sight triangles.

The side street sight distance condition at the Francisco Boulevard/Brighton Road intersection exists at virtually all of the side streets at intersections along the 0.5 mile segment of Francisco Boulevard between Paloma Avenue and Clarendon Road. There is no history of crashes at these intersections that would be the case if there were a significant safety issue associated with a lack of sight distance.

We do not recommend installation of a multi-way stop sign at the Francisco Boulevard/Brighton Road intersection based on existing conditions for the following reasons.
 The volume on the two streets is not approximately equal, as traffic volumes on Francisco Boulevard are considerably higher than those on Brighton Road.  There is no history of crashes at the intersection that would be corrected by a multi-way stop installation.
 None of the primary warrants for installation of a multi-way stop are met.  Installation of a multi-way stop control at this intersection, given the above conditions, may result in a substantial rate of non-compliance where motorists traveling on Francisco Road fail to stop.

22.h
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Attachment H - Letter from City of Pacifica Public Works re: Proposed Angled Parking from March 20, 2023 with Fehr & Peers February 16, 2023 via email
City of Pacifica Planning Commission
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
RE: NCCWD Planning Application, File No. 2022-007
Dear Chair Berman and Honorable Commissioners:

The North Coast County Water District’s (District) Headquarters facility on Francisco Boulevard has served the community of Pacifica since the early 1960’s, but with the passing of time, it is aging, undersized, inefficient, and seismically vulnerable. The administrative building is the sole hub of Pacifica’s water operations and not only houses the customer service and field operations departments, but also the District’s water quality laboratory and public meeting room (boardroom). Given it’s age, the administrative building is outdated in many ways and needs significant accessibility, structural, and safety improvements. Additionally, all of the existing buildings have been determined to perform poorly in a seismic event and require structural improvements to meet current structural code and seismic safety factors.

The District’s goals are to enhance the safety of its employees and customers and to increase the efficiency and functionality of its facility in order to improve water service to the community and City of Pacifica for future generations. There are no plans to increase staff or change the way the District operates, only to replace a dated building that was not designed for today’s computerbased workplace. Upgrading the Headquarters will also allow the District to complete important seismic retrofits and enhance the civic and business corridor along Francisco Blvd.

The District Headquarters is a key part of the Sharp Park neighborhood and provides key civic services to all of the residents of the City. A key part of the Headquarters Project is providing improvements to the Francisco Blvd. corridor, implementing modernizations to the look and operation of the District Headquarters, and providing additional parking for the public to access the features of the neighborhood. By increasing the height of the District’s administrative building, this project follows the Sharp Park Specific Plan’s vision of enhancing Sharp Park’s visibility from Highway 1.

22.i
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.i
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) May 15, 2023 via email
Planning Commission
City of Pacifica
540 Crespi Dr
Pacifica, CA 94044
RE: Planning Commission May 15, 2023, Agenda Item No. 3: File No. 2022-007 – Site Development Permit PSD-857-22, Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Use Permit UP130-22, and Parking Exception PE-194-22 Dear Chair Berman and Honorable Commissioners,
The North Coast County Water District (District) is submitting these comments in response to the materials published on May 11, 2023 regarding the item above filed by the District, which is generally referred to as the District Headquarters Upgrade Project (Project).

Summary
The District agrees with the main point in the Planning Commission Staff Report - the District's Project as originally presented in the District's application is consistent with the City's General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and other applicable City laws.

In addition, the District agrees with many, but not all, of the 50 proposed conditions of approval. The District disagrees with only a few of the proposed conditions as follows:
* Conditions #12 and #13, Angled Parking and All Way Stop. The Staff Report omitted the District's traffic study and response to the City consultant peer review, and we attach these documents so the Planning Commission has the full picture. As explained in more detail below, the District's traffic consultant has demonstrated that angled parking and the all way stop do not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, and therefore these two conditions are not needed for this Project and should be deleted. See Exhibits A & B.
* Condition #11, Relocation of the Temporary Safe Parking Program (TSPP) Spot.

The District fully agrees that the TSPP must be relocated for the health and safety of the people residing in this TSPP spot. However, the City, not the District, has the sole authority to relocate this TSPP spot, and therefore this condition should be modified to state that the City

22.i
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 2 will relocate the TSPP spot no later than July 31, 2023. The District will work with the City as needed to help with the relocation of the TSPP spot.
* Condition #24, Three Driveways on Clarendon Road. The third driveway on Clarendon Road is for a new drive-through recycled water fill station that will provide multiple benefits to the community and increased safety and security of the District's facility. This condition was raised at the last minute by City staff without a detailed explanation. The benefits of this third driveway are significant and therefore this condition should be deleted.

The District disagrees with a few other conditions as set forth below, and the District provides a more detailed explanation for why Conditions #12, #13, and #24 should be deleted and Condition #11 should be modified.

Proposed Motion for Planning Commission
The District urges the Planning Commission to approve the permits set forth in the staff report with all the conditions set forth in Exhibit A to the Resolution, except for the deletion of Conditions #12, #13, #22, #24, #28-30, and #32, and with modifications to Conditions #11, #21, and #26 as described further below.

Introduction
It is the mission of the North Coast County Water District to serve our customers by delivering a sufficient quantity of high quality water in the most cost-effective, reliable, and environmentally sensitive manner. As you know, the District serves the residents of the City of Pacifica: so the City and the District serve the same people.

The North Coast County Water District Headquarters facility on Francisco Boulevard has served the community of Pacifica since the early 1960’s, but with the passing of time, it is aging, undersized, inefficient, and seismically vulnerable. Given that the administration and maintenance buildings are over 60 years old and have not undergone any major renovations since they were originally constructed, these buildings are outdated in many ways and need significant accessibility, structural, and safety improvements.

The District Headquarters facility is the sole hub for the operation of the water system in the City of Pacifica and provides key civic services to all of the residents of the City. The administration building houses the customer service and field operations departments, as well as the District’s water quality laboratory, public meeting room, and emergency operations center. The maintenance building and corporation yard include equipment, supplies, and materials that enable the District to maintain and repair the District's water system, both for planned system maintenance and unexpected emergency repairs, such as water main breaks.

The District’s goals for the Headquarters facility upgrade project are to improve the safety of its employees and customers, to provide a modern up-to-date work environment and expanded public meeting space, to improve the efficiency and functionality of all aspects of the District operations, and to enhance the ability of the District staff to interact with its customers in a safe and welcoming manner.

22.i
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 3 The District's Headquarters facility is located at the gateway to the Sharp Park area and civic center area of Pacifica with the new City Hall just blocks away on Francisco Boulevard. As such, the external components of the Headquarters facility upgrade project are just as important as the internal elements of the buildings and corporation yard. The District's proposed design of the external components of the project is a significant improvement to what exists today. A key element of the external improvements is the inclusion of diagonal parking in the design -- diagonal parking will provide more parking for the public and make it easier and more convenient for customers to come to the District's Headquarters to conduct business and attend public meetings, as well as visit local neighborhood businesses.

We urge the Planning Commission to approve the permit for the District's Headquarters facility upgrade project as presented, including with the diagonal parking. This project will provide a new Headquarters facility that is safe, energy-efficient, versatile, and customer friendly that enables the District to continue to provide round-the-clock water service to all of Pacifica for generations to come.

In designing this Project, the District has been extremely respectful to the surrounding neighborhood, including moving the entrance of the Headquarters from residential Brighton Rd to the more commercial Francisco Blvd frontage. The design also removes a driveway/yard entrance from Francisco Boulevard, which is important to facilitating increased parking along the Francisco Blvd. frontage and also increasing pedestrian safety. The design also strives to match the scale and character of the street and neighborhood, including beatifying the neighborhood with attractive plantings and diagonal parking to invoke a “downtown” feel.

Exterior renderings of this Project are provided in Exhibit C.

Planning Application Process
The District has been very proactive to reach out to the City both leading up to and throughout the Planning Application submittal process. Prior to submitting the Planning Application, District staff and consultants met with multiple City departments to understand what requirements might be imposed. We shared the goals and the scope of the project early on and tried to understand any issues at hand from the City’s perspective. During the Planning Application process, we provided detailed responses during multiple rounds of review from the City and made ourselves available to answer questions at any time. We generated requested reports with little to no standard criteria provided by the City when requested. Finally, this Project has been delayed and complications have arisen due to Planning Department staffing shortages and changes in City staff and leadership. A letter was sent from the District to the City Manager on October 28, 2022 regarding this matter.

In reviewing some of the conditions imposed on the District in the Resolution attached to the Planning Commission item, it is unclear that the City performed a review of materials that were submitted by the District in September 2022 (third submittal of District’s Planning Application).

Additionally, the Plans attached to the Staff Report as Attachment B are an outdated set of plans that the District submitted in March 2022. The District submitted detailed, revised plans in both the June and September Planning Application submittals. The District contacted the Planning Department on Friday, May 12, 2023 upon review of the materials uploaded for this hearing to inform them that incorrect drawings had been included for this Project. The District

22.i
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 4 has not received a response from the Planning Department regarding this error. The District is attaching the correct set of plans that was submitted on September 9, 2022 to the Planning Department as a part of the third submittal of its Planning Application for the District Headquarters Upgrade Project (see Exhibit D). These are the plans that should be referenced in the discussion around the Headquarters Project.

Diagonal Parking – Conditions #12 and #13
As the District has been planning this project for many years, the District made a point to contact the City early on in the process to share information about our project with the City staff. We first met with Planning in May 2021, followed by meetings with the Building Department and then Engineering. District staff and our architect team first spoke with the former City Engineer, Sam Bautista, on October 4, 2021. We shared information about the project, including the proposed diagonal parking. Mr. Bautista expressed his support for the diagonal parking but requested that the District perform a traffic study to determine speeds along Francisco and to study the need for a stop sign at Brighton Rd to increase safety.

The District first sent in the Headquarters Project to the Planning Department on March 20, 2022. The District received an Incompleteness Determination letter on April 20, 2022, and requested to meet with Planning to understand why some of the requests in that letter had been made. In the April 25, 2022 meeting with Planning Department staff, the District was first informed that the City had designated a Temporary Safe Parking Permit program parking spot in the same location as the planned diagonal parking along Francisco Blvd. At that meeting, Planning staff told District staff that we would need to speak with Engineering Department staff to discuss the diagonal parking design, as the response provided in the Incompleteness Determination was vague. District staff met with Engineering Department staff on May 5th, 2022, seeking an explanation for the City’s comments on diagonal parking.

During that meeting, Engineering Department staff stated that one of the reasons that diagonal parking would not be allowed is that a spot had been designated for the TSPP in the exact location that the diagonal parking was planned. They also stated if the TSPP spot were to move, such that diagonal parking could be accommodated in that location, they would need the District to complete a study of the safety of the diagonal parking for the City to be able to approve the diagonal parking. The District subsequently completed the traffic safety study, including collecting data on traffic patterns along Francisco Blvd, studying the safety of diagonal parking, and looking into the possible need for a stop sign on Francisco at Brighton to slow down traffic prior to the block with diagonal parking. That study is attached here as Exhibit A. The study showed that diagonal parking can be implemented safely along Francisco Blvd, and it also showed that implementation of a stop sign on Francisco at Brighton can increase traffic safety around the District Headquarters.

The District received the peer review of the aforementioned traffic study on February 22, 2023 in an email communication from Planning Department staff. Subsequently, on March 20, 2023 the District received the letter from City Engineer Roland Yip, RE: NCCWD Headquarters Project Proposed Angled Parking that is Attachment D to the City’s staff report on this item.

The District’s traffic consultant provided the attached letter response regarding the peer

22.i
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 5 review, which the District is now providing to the City as Exhibit B to this letter. It should be noted that the City’s peer review of the District’s traffic study does not contradict the conclusions that are in the District’s study.

In his letter Mr. Yip’s letter states that “Engineering Department provided comments on the Project on April 5th, July 11th, and September 22nd 2022.” The District was in receipt of Engineering Department comments that were included in Incompleteness Determination letters dated April 20, 2022 and July 15, 2022. The District never received a response back from the Planning Department after its third Planning Application submittal (submitted September 14, 2022). Instead, the District received an email notification on November 15, 2022 from the Planning Director that the District’s application was deemed complete due to the failure of the Planning Department to respond within the required 30-day timeframe by the Permit Streamlining Act. The District did not receive comments dated April 5th, July 11th, and September 22nd from the Engineering Services Department. The Planning Department did not include detailed comments from the Engineering Services Department in their Incompleteness Determination letters, but the Incompleteness Determination letter dated July 15, 2022 included a Department of Public Works plan check sheet dated June 24, 2022 authored by CSG Consultants that included C.3 stormwater-related comments. However, on February 22, 2023, the Planning Department sent a list of 16 comments from the Engineering Department dated February 21, 2023. Some of the comments were specifically about the diagonal parking proposal, but others were about other aspects of the project and were comments that had never been communicated to the District about the project.

The proposed diagonal parking does not interfere with the City’s recently-adopted General Plan, as suggested by Mr. Yip’s letter. There is no basis for this claim. Francisco Blvd. currently supports multi-modal transportation, and the addition of diagonal parking will not hinder that. Additionally, as with many other parts of the City, cars and bicycles share the road on Francisco Blvd. As an example, diagonal parking in Rockaway Beach neighborhood is successful and bikes and cars share the road. Diagonal parking can be implemented safely, looks better, and provides areas for incorporating landscaping along the street.

The City adopted a Bicycled and Pedestrian Master Plan in February 2020. The District researched this document during the design phase, making sure that the block between Brighton and Clarendon on Francisco was not included in the designated bike routes. It is not included in the “Recommended Bicycle Facilities” for the Sharp Park neighborhood. It is not included as an “existing” or “proposed” bikeway in this plan. Instead, Oceana, parallel to Francisco on the east side of Highway 1 is being appropriately prioritized as a proposed Class II bicycle lane.

Exhibit C provides several renderings of what the District Headquarters will look like when completed, including the proposed diagonal parking. The District is providing a neighborhood friendly facility with parking designated along the Francisco Blvd business corridor. The angle parking will increase the amount of parking available to the public who visit the District, the beach and the adjacent businesses. The corridor created by diagonal parking will create a destination for the neighborhood, like the business corridor in Rockaway Beach that includes diagonal parking.

22.i
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 6 Work completed by the District showed that adding a stop sign at the intersection of Brighton and Francisco will increase the safety of the 240-ft block between Clarendon and Brighton Rd, where diagonal parking is more expected. Therefore, deleting Condition #13 would allow for a more controlled block with a short distance between intersections.

We respectfully request that the Planning Commission delete Conditions #12 and #13.

Relocation of TSPP Spot – Condition #11
As the staff report states, with the construction of the Project and any pre-construction activities, there is a health and safety risk for anyone residing at the TSPP spot located on Francisco Boulevard immediately adjacent to the Project. The District agrees with a condition that this TSPP spot be relocated before any Project pre-construction activities begin.

However, the District does not have the authority to relocate this TSPP spot. The City has the authority to relocate the TSPP spot under its TSPP regulations, under the Operations Agreement between the City and the Pacifica Resource Center, and under the Settlement Agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union. Because this authority rests with the City, the condition needs to be revised to specify that the City will relocate this TSPP spot by July 31, 2023 so that the District can proceed with its pre-construction activities after that date.

Recycled Water Drive-Through (Third Driveway on Clarendon) – Condition #24 A key feature of the District Headquarters Project is the inclusion of a new drive-through Recycled Water Fill Station, which would increase public access to this unique water supply that is offered free of charge to Pacifica residents trained and certified to use this recycled water.

The District has operated a Residential Recycled Water Fill Station at it’s Headquarters since 2015. Currently, during the dry season, the District operates the Fill Station several days per week for a limited time window. To provide the recycled water, the District must open the gate to its corporation yard and provide a staff member to serve the recycled water to customers.

This creates a burden on the District by taking away a staff member from other critical water operations tasks. There is also a security risk to District property by opening its gates for several hours per week and allowing access to the District corporation yard.

The new drive-through Fill Station would provide a way for customers to access recycled water at any time during normal business hours, when the gates to this drive-through are unlocked.

By creating a one-way drive aisle to serve the public, the corporation yard can remain secure and the public kept outside of maintenance operations. Not only would this increase the public’s access to this water supply, it would also free up District staff for other critical tasks.

However, according to Condition #24 of Resolution attached to this staff report, the City is telling the District to reduce the number of driveways from three to two along Clarendon Rd.

This would eliminate the District’s ability to provide this recycled water drive-through and has not been communicated directly to the District since the District first submitted its’ plans in March 2022. The District discussed this recycled water drive-through with the City in several meetings with Engineering staff, including the meetings on October 4, 2021 and May 5, 2022.

22.i
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 7 The City never communicated this request/requirement to the District in the written materials received by the District in response to the Planning Application or in conversations with Engineering staff. During our meeting with Engineering staff on October 4, 2021, Engineering staff requested that we make the driveway one-way, with the entry in the eastern driveway (existing) and the exit in the western driveway (the newly proposed driveway) and signage to indicate that only right turns are allowed from that exit. The District agreed to this and the drawing PL.A2.01 in the plans shown in Attachment B to the staff report for this item show the one-way plans, with the bus stop also noted. The District has been in touch with SamTrans who can accommodate this curb length.

The initial rounds of Engineering Department comments that were included in Incompleteness Determination letters dated April 20, 2022 and July 15, 2022 did not provide any direction to the District to eliminate this third driveway or that this driveway was unacceptable to the City.

This only came to light when we received the list of 16 comments/conditions from the Engineering Department dated February 21, 2023 (mentioned above) that was addressed to Planning, but sent to the District on February 22nd, 2023 along with the traffic study peer review.

The District told Planning and Engineering that this was a new list of conditions to us, and these items were not included in any previous emails directly to the District nor were they included in the two Incompleteness Determination letters as items the District needed to address upon resubmission of its plans.

On March 1 and March 2, 2023, the District communicated to the Planning Department that we wanted to meet with the Engineering Department to get explanations for each of the conditions that were listed in the February 21 communication. The District also requested that Engineering provide specific City policies and/or design standards that lead to these conditions being imposed by the District. The District has not received a response to date from Planning or Engineering responding to this request.

To address the specific “site distance conflict” concern that the City has pointed out in the staff report as the reason to delete the recycled water drive-through, the District would add signage to the drive-through prohibiting drivers from exiting the drive-through when a bus is present at the bus stop. It should be noted that this is a very low volume program that includes 68 users of recycled water. These users need to be certified to access the Recycled Water Fill Station (complete training and pass a test). Additionally, the District keeps detailed records of use of the Fill Station, and there are approximately 20 regular users. The District regularly communicates with the Recycled Water Fill Station user group and can communicate this prohibition to the users via regular letters and emails to those customers.

Making a redesign of a main feature of the Headquarters Upgrade Project a condition of approval is an unacceptable hardship that will not only delay this project, causing cost increases, but also thwarts the District’s ability to provide recycled water safely to the community members who rely on this unique supply. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission delete Condition #24.

22.i
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 8 Condition #21
The condition to pave all frontage areas from curb to curb along Francisco Blvd, Clarendon Rd, and Brighton Rd with a grind and overlay existing asphalt with minimum 2-inch AC is extreme.

Is this a requirement on all redevelopment projects within the City? Again, the District received this condition with the list of 16 conditions from the Engineering Department on February 21, 2023, and the City has not responded to the District regarding its request for an explanation as to why the District is being required to complete Condition #21. What is the specific City policy or design standard for this condition?
In looking at the conditions imposed on the Pacifica School District for their recently-approved housing project on Oddstad Blvd, there was not a similar condition recommended by the Engineering Department. The condition imposed on the School District on 3/20/23 was as follows:
“The Applicant shall repair and/or replace additional areas of street pavement, sidewalk, curb, and gutter, street lights, manhole, catch basins, or any other public infrastructure within the right-of-way damaged by construction activities associated with the project (utility installation, etc.) as required by the City Inspector during construction.” This seems like a more appropriate condition to apply to this Project, as well. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission modify condition #21 on the District to be the same condition as imposed on the Pacifica School District.

Condition #22
Similarly to Condition #21, this condition is not appropriate for this Project, which is simply replacing and improving the current infrastructure. There is no new development proposed on this site. This condition seems like one that would be imposed on a new housing or commercial development in the City, not a redevelopment of an existing public agency administration and operations facility. Again, in looking at the conditions imposed on the Pacifica School District for their recently-approved housing project on Oddstad Blvd, there was not a similar condition recommended by the Engineering Department. The costs of performing these kinds of improvements should rest with the City and not with the Water District.

We respectfully request that the Planning Commission delete Condition #22 Condition #26
The District agrees that the new, third driveway approach from Clarendon into the District Headquarters corporation yard should comply with this condition. However, the two existing driveways on Clarendon are not planned to be demolished and reconstructed as a part of the Project.

We respectfully request that the Planning Commission modify condition #26 to apply only to the newly installed third driveway on Clarendon.

22.i
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 9 Condition #28-30
Conditions #28-30 were included in the second Incompleteness Determination letter (dated July 15, 2022) on the Department of Public Works plan check sheet dated June 24, 2022 authored by CSG Consultants that included C.3 stormwater-related comments (also mentioned above). The District responded to these comments on stormwater drainage in its third submittal of its Planning Application, submitted on September 14, 2022. The District revised the Headquarters plans in response to the June 24, 2022 comments (Exhibit D) and also responded to those comments (Exhibit E).

For Conditions #28 and #29, drawing C5.00 in Exhibit D shows the revised Drainage Management Areas and provides a table comparing planned treatment area versus required treatment area. In lieu treated area is provided in certain drainage management areas that addresses the required treatment area that is not provided in other drainage management areas, which is provided per Chapter 9.2.3 of San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Regulated Projects Guide. Exhibit E provides an explanation and response to the City’s previously provided comments.

For Condition #30, drawing C2.00 in Exhibit D shows the concrete valley gutter along Francisco Blvd frontage. Exhibit E provides an explanation and response to the City’s previously provided comments.

Because the District has already addressed stormwater drainage per the City’s previously provided comments, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission delete Conditions #28, #29 and #30.

Condition #32
The District has repeatedly told the City that this fuel station is an existing facility and is specifically excluded from the Project area. No changes are being made to the fuel station, and this requirement for covering the fuel station is outside of the District’s Project, so we respectfully request that the Planning Commission delete Condition #32.

Inaccuracies in Resolution
On page 8 of the Resolution included with the Staff Report for this item, there is a discussion about the District’s property. The District would like to point out that there is only one APN for the parcel that is owned by the District, so the statement that “site is not a single legally created lot” is false. There is one lot, but it does contain two zoning designations. The City is responsible for rezoning, so when the District consolidated its two lots in the 1970s, the City should have taken action to rezone the portion of the District’s property that is zoned R-3.

Conclusion
The District is asking the Planning Commission to approve the Project as submitted, including with the diagonal parking and the recycled water drive-through. Therefore, the District is asking the Planning Commission to delete Conditions #12, #13,#22 #24, #28-30, and #32. The District is also asking for changes to Conditions #11, #21, and #26. The Planning Commission has the discretion to approve the permits with these modifications based on the information submitted by the District.

22.i
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

22.i
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 1
January 10, 2023
Project No. 622114
Adrianne Carr, Ph.D.

General Manager
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacífica, CA 94044
T: 650-3553462
E: [email protected]
RE: NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS

PROJECT TRAFFIC EVALUATION

PACIFICA, CA
Dear Adrianne,
At the request of the North Coast County Water District (District), we have performed a traffic evaluation for the new District Headquarters. This evaluation focuses on the following specific elements:
• Evaluation of Francisco Blvd / Brighton Rd including an All-way Stop Control Warrant • Roadway / Parking Layout of Francisco Blvd along Headquarters frontage The following report presents the evaluation and resulting findings / recommendations for each of the two elements.

All Way Stop Warrant
Primary Warrants
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) Section 2B.07 provides a set of guidelines that can be used to determine the appropriateness of installing an all-way stop condition at an intersection. The primary warrants listed for installing all-way stop control include:

A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.

B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.

C. Minimum volumes:

1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and

2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but

22.i
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 2

3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2.

D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.

Primary Warrant A (Interim Condition)
Primary Warrant A is specifically targeted toward intersections where signalization is either under consideration or is already planned for future installation. Signalization has not been planned or considered at the project intersection meaning Primary Warrant A is not applicable.

Primary Warrant B (Crash History)
The crash history warrant is aimed at reducing the frequency of crashes at an intersection via the installation of all-way stop control. To analyze this warrant, collision records for a five-year period (01/01/2018- 01/01/2023) were collected from the California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Between 2018 and 2023 there were three collisions recorded at the intersection including two sideswipes with a parked vehicle and one collision with a fixed object. None of these collision types are considered to be susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. The frequency of crashes is also far below the five crashes within a 12-month period threshold specified in the warrant. For this reason, Primary Warrant B was not satisfied.

Primary Warrant C (Minimum Volumes)
Primary Warrant C analyzes whether traffic volumes and/or vehicle delay warrant the installation of all-way stop control.

Traffic counts were collected on 08/03/22 (Wednesday) from 7:00AM-9:00AM and 4:00PM-6:00PM. This was assumed to capture the peak AM and PM traffic volume periods respectively at the intersection. These counts were utilized to analyze minimum traffic volumes. The full traffic count data can be found in the appendix of this report.

From the combined 4 hours of AM and PM peak period data, the average hourly traffic along Francisco Blvd (both directions) was found to be 194 veh/hr. This is below the required 300 veh/hr threshold. Additionally, because the collected data represents the peak period traffic conditions, it was assumed that traffic volumes outside of this range are also at or below 194 veh/hr. As a result, Primary warrant C.1 was not satisfied.

Primary Warrant C.1 and C.2 must both be met to be satisfied. Because Primary Warrant C.1 was not satisfied, Primary Warrant C.2 was not analyzed.

The 85th percentile speed along Francisco Blvd was determined to be 32 mph. Primary Warrant C.3 was found not applicable because the 85th percent speed is below the 40 MPH threshold of Warrant C.3.

Primary Warrant D (Combined Criteria)
Primary Warrant D pertains to Primary Warrant B and C being satisfied in combination while only requiring each to meet 80% of their stated values.

For Primary Warrant B, the 80% value equates to 4 crashes within a 12-month period. For the highest frequency 12-month period only 2 crashes were reported at the intersection, both of which are not considered to be susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. As a result, Primary Warrant D was deemed to be not applicable, and it was not necessary to reanalyze Primary Warrant C to 80% values.

22.i
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 3
Optional Warrants
Section 2B.07 of the CAMUTCD also lists several optional considerations including:

A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection.

Optional Warrant A (Left-Turn Conflicts)
All-way stop control may be warranted at an intersection if there are significant left-turn conflicts. SWITRS crash history for the five-year period was consulted to determine if there appears to be any left turn conflict present at the intersection. Over the five-year period, none of the reported crashes involved a left turn movement. For this reason, Optional Warrant A was not deemed to be satisfied.

Optional Warrant B (Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflicts)
Optional Warrant B examines whether there are significant pedestrian conflicts across the uncontrolled approaches of the intersection. There are no crosswalks across Francisco Blvd and no pedestrian destinations on the east side of Francisco Blvd to generate any crossing pedestrian traffic. Optional Warrant B was deemed not satisfied because there does not appear to be a significant pedestrian conflict for the currently uncontrolled Francisco Blvd approaches.

Optional Warrant C (Line of Sight)
Optional Warrant C examines whether line-of-sight limitations restrict a driver’s ability to navigate the intersection and avoid conflicting vehicle traffic safely. Because the Francisco Blvd approaches are uncontrolled, and the Brighton Rd approach is stop controlled the only condition analyzed was drivers entering the intersection from the Brighton Rd approach.

The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (HDM) section 405.1 provides guidance regarding intersection Corner sight distance.

The 85th percentile speed (32 MPH) was used as the design speed and the design vehicle was assumed to be a passenger vehicle.

The HDM methodology resulted in the required sight distance to be 305’ for vehicles approaching from the left on SB Francisco Blvd and 355’ for vehicles approaching from the right on NB Francisco Blvd. However, the allway stop-controlled intersection of Clarendon Rd and Francisco Blvd is only 240’ from the decision point at the project intersection. Because all vehicles come to a complete stop at the Clarendon Rd and Francisco Blvd intersection, it was assumed that the line of sight only needs to extend to the edge of this intersection (240’).

Exhibit 1 shows the resulting line of sight with the proposed site development shown for reference. For vehicles to safely enter uncontrolled Francisco Blvd, 215’ of clear space is required along the curb line to the north of the intersection and 100’ of clear space is required along the curb line to the south of the intersection.

This would result in the removal of approximately six existing parallel parking spaces to the north of the

22.i
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 4
intersection and approximately three proposed parallel parking stalls to the south of the intersection.

Removing this parking would require public outreach and is assumed to receive community pushback. The line of sight is not sufficient without the removal of parking and would require additional analysis and outreach. Optional warrant C is considered to be satisfied due to the line-of-sight limitations as this project does not propose to remove or limit existing roadway parking.

Optional Warrant D (Intersection of Two Collectors)
Optional Warrant D examines locations where two similar Residential collector roadways intersect. According to the City of Pacifica General plan dated May 2022, Francisco Blvd is classified as a collector, and Brighton Rd is classified as a local street. Because Brighton Rd is not a collector or through street, Optional Warrant D is not satisfied.

Summary and Recommendations
Table 1 summarizes the results of each All-Way Stop Control warrant that was examined. Optional Warrant C (Line of Sight) was found to be satisfied due to line-of-sight limitations. Given our understanding of parking demand near the Project extents, review of the surrounding roadway / traffic environment and Optional Warrant C being satisfied, we recommend all-way stop control be implemented at the Francisco Blvd and Brighton Rd intersection.

Table 1: All-Way Stop Warrant Results
Primary Warrants
Letter Criteria Satisfied
A Interim Condition (Before Signalization) Not Applicable B Crash History No
C.1 Major Street Volumes No
C.2 Minor Street Volumes No
C.3 Reduced Thresholds for Roadways Exceeding 40 MPH Travel Speeds Not Applicable
D Combined 80% Criteria for B, C.1 & C.2 together (C.3 not applicable) No
Optional Warrants
Letter Criteria Satisfied
A Left-Turn Conflicts No
B Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflicts No
C Line of Sight Yes
D Intersection of two Residential Collectors (through) Streets Not Applicable

22.i
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 5
Francisco Boulevard Parking / Lane Configuration
Overview
The proposed District Headquarters project intends to improve the project frontages along Francisco Blvd, Clarendon Rd and Brighton Rd. As part of these improvements, new sidewalk/landscaping will be constructed along with parking facilities adjacent to the roadway. The project is currently proposing parallel parking along the Clarendon and Brighton Rd frontages and a combination of parallel and diagonal parking along the Francisco Blvd frontage.

As part of this study, Sandis evaluated the overall roadway layout on Francisco to determine whether diagonal parking is feasible within the current roadway extents of Francisco Blvd. The proposed layout shows a 4.8 ft wide sidewalk, 19.9 ft wide 45-degree parking area, and 12 ft wide lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions. In order to determine if this configuration is adequate from a circulation standpoint, Sandis performed an analysis using the Autoturn program. Refer to Exhibit 2, Diagonal Parking Exhibit, which shows the movement of a vehicle exiting one of the diagonal stalls and then traveling southbound on Francisco Blvd. As indicated on, a vehicle can stay within the southbound lane extents when backing out and turning to travel southbound.

Summary and Recommendations
Based on our review of the proposed parking and travel lane layout, we believe that the diagonal parking configuration is acceptable and does not create a safety concern. Maintaining the 12 ft wide travel lanes and installing a center lane stripe will promote traffic calming and encourage vehicles to travel at slower speeds between the Brighton and Clarendon Rd intersections.

Please contact me at [email protected] with any questions or should you require additional information.

Regards,
Ronald Sanzo, PE, TE, PTOE
Director of Engineering
Attachments: Traffic Count Data, Exhibit 1 – Line of Sight Exhibit, Exhibit 2 – Diagonal Parking Exhibit

22.i
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 22-080222-001 Day:

City: Pacifica Date:

AM 2 88 0 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 8 185 0 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 000
0 000
000 00 000
404 0 TEV 149 0 330 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.83 0.90
3 0 11 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 8 114 0 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 4 48 0 AM
0 NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM 118
Francisco Blvd & Brighton Rd
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Francisco Blvd Wednesday
SOUTHBOUND 8/3/2022

PEAK HOURS
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 52 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
000
Totals (AM) 196 Total Bikes (AM)
Brighton Rd

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Brighton Rd
6 0 16

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(EB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 91

NORTHBOUND
Francisco Blvd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
1 0
6 1
0 2
00 000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00 000 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
010
000
0 0
11 0
0 4
81850
81140
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
3 0
0 4
2880
4480

22.i
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Francisco Blvd & Brighton Rd
City: Pacifica Project ID:

Control: 1-Way Stop(EB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0000000000000000

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0200061010100000 11
7:15 AM 0000031010000000 5
7:30 AM 1 4 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 20
7:45 AM 1 3 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
8:00 AM 2 14 0 0 0 22 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 45
8:15 AM 0 14 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
8:30 AM 1 8 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
8:45 AM 1 12 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 30

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 6 57 0 0 0 118 6 0 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 201
APPROACH %'s : 9.52% 90.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 95.16% 4.84% 0.00% 42.86% 0.00% 57.14% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:00 AM 41 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 48 0 0 0 88 2 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 149
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.857 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.759 0.250 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0000000000000000

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 2 25 0 0 0 44 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 74
4:15 PM 2 25 0 0 0 40 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 71
4:30 PM 2 25 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 64
4:45 PM 1 24 0 0 0 44 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73
5:00 PM 1 29 0 0 0 55 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 92
5:15 PM 2 30 0 0 0 54 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 90
5:30 PM 4 17 0 0 0 34 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 64
5:45 PM 1 38 0 0 0 42 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 84

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 15 213 0 0 0 348 13 0 7 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 612 APPROACH %'s : 6.58% 93.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 96.40% 3.60% 0.00% 30.43% 0.00% 69.57% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:00 PM 293 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 8 114 0 0 0 185 8 0 4 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 330
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.841 0.500 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.550 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22-080222-001
8/3/2022
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM

0.897 0.782 0.846 0.750
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM

0.828

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.813 0.776 0.350

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Totals
Francisco Blvd Francisco Blvd Brighton Rd Brighton Rd

22.i
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Day: City: Pacifica
Date: Project #: CA22_080223_001
Time < 15 15 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 24 25 ‐ 29 30 ‐ 34 35 ‐ 39 40 ‐ 44 45 ‐ 49 50 ‐ 54 55 ‐ 59 60 ‐ 64 65 ‐ 69 70 + Total 00:00 AM 2025200000000 11
01:00 0003402000000 9
02:00 0014200000000 7
03:00 0005100000000 6
04:00 1010210000000 5
05:00 2 1 2 12 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
06:00 7 3 8 20 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45
07:00 15 4 13 21 25 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
08:00 10 4 31 28 27 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 109
09:00 14 5 21 64 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135
10:00 11 4 44 76 38 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
11:00 17 5 53 88 37 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 203
12:00 PM 11 9 38 85 48 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196
13:00 17 9 45 78 39 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193
14:00 11 7 52 73 47 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 198
15:00 14 11 50 105 47 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 228
16:00 9 10 78 123 52 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 283
17:00 16 17 66 131 66 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299
18:00 12 4 44 122 52 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235
19:00 7 6 30 74 44 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172
20:00 3 2 25 54 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118
21:00 1 2 15 39 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71
22:00 0 0 8 20 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
23:00 1029810000000 21
181 103 629 1239 626 72 11 2861
6% 4% 22% 43% 22% 3% 0% 100%
79 26 176 326 179 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 812
3% 1% 6% 11% 6% 1% 0% 28%
11:00 09:00 11:00 11:00 10:00 08:00 01:00             11:00 17 5 53 88 38 8 2             203
102 77 453 913 447 51 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2049
4% 3% 16% 32% 16% 2% 0% 72%
13:00 17:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 19:00 14:00 17:00
17 17 78 131 66 11 3             299
AM 7‐9 NOON 12‐2 PM 4‐6 Off Peak Volumes
Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume %
189 7% 389 14% 582 20% 1701 59%
Summary
ADT
2861
Percentiles Street Name
Francisco Blvd
85th
32 95th
35 50th
27 Average
26 15th  Direction
21 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Francisco Blvd N/O Brighton Rd
8/3/2022
Summary
Totals
% of Totals
AM Volumes
% AM
AM Peak Hour
All Speeds
Wednesday
Volume
PM Volumes
% PM
PM Peak Hour
Volume
Directional Peak Periods

22.i
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

NO PARKING
0'
1 INCH =
8' 20' 40' 80'
40 FT

22.i
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 0'
1 INCH =
4' 10' 20' 40'
20 FT
sandis.net
build on.

22.i
Packet Pg. 703
Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 1
March 24, 2023
Project No. 622114
Adrianne Carr, Ph.D.

General Manager
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacífica, CA 94044
T: 650-3553462
E: [email protected]
RE: NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS
Response to Peer Review and Comments

PACIFICA, CA
Dear Adrianne,
We have reviewed Fehr & Peers’ Peer Review (February 14, 2023) and the City of Pacifica’s 4th Submittal Review (February 21, 2023) letter. At the request of the North Coast County Water District (District), we are providing a response to the two documents; this response focuses on the following specific elements:
• All Way Stop Warrant
• Roadway / Parking Layout of Francisco Blvd along Headquarters frontage All Way Stop Warrant
Summary and Recommendations
An All-Way Stop Control warrant that was examined our January 10, 2023 Traffic Evaluation. Optional Warrant C (Line of Sight) was found to be satisfied due to line-of-sight limitations.

This conclusion was based on corner sight setbacks prescribed by the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM); Sandis determined that 18.8’ is an acceptable setback, based on the roadway and shoulder. However, a setback of 15’ could be used and still comply with the HDM. However, a 15’ does not provide clear line of sight based on the distances prescribed by the HDM.

The Peer Review for Traffic Evaluation for North Cost County Water District HQ prepared by Fehr and Peers highlights concern with using a corner sight set back of 18.8’. The Review indicates that vehicles would be able to stop closer than 18.8’ to the edge of the Francisco Boulevard traveled way. Fehr and Peers, however, does not indicate what the closer setback distance would be and does not provide a sight distance exhibit.

Currently, parking on the North West side of Francisco Boulevard is not restricted, allowing vehicles to park right up to the intersection. This incontestably inhibits the sight distance of a right-turning vehicle, causing them to pull into the crosswalk and edge of the traveled way. Providing clear space and adequate sight distance, per the HDM or engineering judgment, reduces the potential for collisions and vehicle encroachment into the pedestrian crosswalk.

Intersection daylighting, restricting parking from 20-30’ at an intersection, is a common practice that increases sight distance. Daylighting can be provided at controlled and uncontrolled intersections as a safety enhancement for vehicles and pedestrians.

22.i
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) BUILD ON. | 2
As such, Sandis has concluded that providing an all-way stop or intersection daylighting are both measures that will correct the corner sight distance deficiency, enhancing intersection safety. Parking removal should be considered and reviewed prior to any changes.

Francisco Boulevard Parking / Project Frontage
The proposed District Headquarters is expected to service District customers and users that will arrive by personal vehicles to make payments or interact with District personnel. The District has identified a need to provide safe and convenient parking for these users that will not have access to the internal parking garage.

As such, these users will need to park along the frontage.

The district’s proposed diagonal parking maximizes frontage parking to achieve its goal. Diagonal parking is typically in business and downtown districts, often where speeds are low, and distances between intersections are short and controlled. Providing an all-way stop at Brighton Road creates a 240’ block between Clarendon Road, creating an environment where diagonal parking is more expected.

Please contact me at [email protected] with any questions or should you require additional information.

Regards,
Ronald Sanzo, PE, TE, PTOE
Director of Engineering

22.i
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Looking North Along Francisco Boulevard North Coast County Water District 05/03/2023

22.i
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Looking West from Francisco Boulevard North Coast County Water District 05/03/2023

22.i
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Corner of Brighton Rd and Francisco Blvd from Highway 1 North Coast County Water District 05/03/2023

22.i
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Corner of Brighton Rd and Francisco Blvd from Street Level North Coast County Water District 05/03/2023

22.i
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

LOCAL STREET MAP

PROJECT LOCATION

THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING ONE-STORY AUTO REPAIR BAY, AND DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY 9,750 SQFT SPACE AND UPGRADES TO

THE EXISTING MAINTENANCE BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SEPARATE SHOP BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROJECT WILL MAINTAIN EXISTING SCADA SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES AND TRANSFER THE SCADA TO A NEW SPACE IN THE NEW BUILDING.

UPGRADES TO 4,700 SQFT MAINTENANCE BUILDING:

1. ADD WALL-MOUNTED TRELLISES AT NORTH ELEVATION

2. SEISMIC RETROFIT

3. SKIM COAT AND PAINT EXTERIOR, PAINT INTERIOR
SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING:

1. UTILITIES/INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES

2. HARDSCAPE PATHWAYS

3. SOFTSCAPE PLANTING

4. NEW RECYCLED WATER DRIVE-THROUGH

5. SECURITY FENCING AND GATES
EXISTING FUELING STATION TO REMAIN AS IS.

SHOP BUILDING: 1375 SQFT
SOLAR CANOPY: 1800 SQFT
WASH RACK: 450 SQFT

PROJECT SUMMARY

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:37:27 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

COVER SHEET
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.G0.00

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PLANNING APP - RESUBMITTAL - 09/05/22
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Client
North Coast County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Tel: (650)355-3462
Architect
Noll & Tam Architects
729 Heinz Ave
Berkeley, CA 94710
Tel: (510) 542-2200
Fax: (510) 542-2201
Cost Estimator
TBD Consultants Inc.
110 Pine Street Suite 1315
San Francisco CA 94112
Tel: (415) 981-9430
Civil
BKF Engineers
254 Shoreline Drive Suite
200
Redwood City CA 94065
Tel: (650) 482-6300
Structural
IDA Structural Engineers
Inc.
1629 Telegraph Avenue
Suite 300
Oakland CA 94612-2114
Tel: (510) 834-1629
MEP
Gayner Engineers
1133 Post Street
San Francisco CA 94109
Tel: (415) 474-9500
Low Voltage
Smith, Fause & McDonald
Inc.
351 8th Street
San Francisco CA 94103
Tel: (415) 255-9140
Fax: (415) 255-9180
Landscape
RHAA Landscape
Architects + Planners
323 Geary St # 602
San Francisco CA 94102
Tel: (415) 861-7900
# DATE DESCRIPTION

PLANNING
PL.G0.00 COVER SHEET

PLANNING
PL.A1.01 SITE PLAN - EXISTING
PL.A2.01 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
PL.A2.02 SITE PLAN - CONTEXT
PL.A2.31 FLOOR PLAN- 1ST FLOOR
PL.A2.32 FLOOR PLAN- 2ND FLOOR
PL.A3.11 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
PL.A3.12 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SITE CONTEXT
PL.A3.13 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SHOP BUILDING
PL.A3.31 BUILDING SECTIONS
CIVIL
C1.00. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
C2.00. HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
C2.01. PAVING PLAN
C3.00. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C3.01. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C4.00. UTILITY PLAN
C4.01. UTILITY PLAN
C5.00. STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN
C5.01. STORM WATER CONTROL DETAILS
C6.00. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
C6.01. EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS
C6.02. SAN MATEO COUNTY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

LANDSCAPE
L1.00 PLANTING PLAN
L2.00 IRRIGATION PLAN

ELECTRICAL
E0.03. ELECTRICAL EXTERIOR FIXTURE SCHEDULE
E1.02. ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PLAN - SITE
TOTAL SHEETS: : 26

SHEET INDEX
APN: 016322230

22.i
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) (E) CURB RAMP
(E) PAD AND

GENERATOR
(E) RECYCLED

WATER FILL
▲N
(E) PLANTERS
1761 SQFT TOTAL
(E) PACBELL

UTILITY VAULT
(E) PG&E

UTILITY VAULTS
7' -
0 "
S
I
D
E
WA
L
K
4' - 8" SIDEWALK
(E) CORP YARD
24260 SQFT TOTAL
123456789
10 11 12
6' -
0 "
(
E
)
S
I
D
E
WA
L
K
5' -
1 1
"
(
E
)
P
LA
NTE
R
5' -
4 "

ENTRANCE

PROPERTY LINE
(E) FUELING STATION

NO CHANGES PROPOSED

CLARENDON RD

FRANCISCO BLVD
50 FEET WIDE
50 FEET WIDE
50 FEET WIDE
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
P13
(E) ANTENNA POLE WILL BE

DEMOLISHED & TRANSMITTERS

RELOCATED TO MAINTENANCE

BUILDING
(E) ANTENNA POLE TO REMAIN.
58' ABOVE GRADE.

P14 P15
VA
C
U
U
M
TR
U
C
K
BA
C
K
H
O
E

MINI DUMP TRUCK
S
ER
VIC
E
TR
U
C
K
VA
C
U
U
M
P
AR
KIN
G
P
AR
KIN
G
P
AR
KIN
G
TR
U
C
K
13 14 15
(E) GREEN ZONE

SHORT TERM PARKING
(E) ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE
(E) DEFUNCT FLAGPOLE

TO BE REMOVED
(E) TWO-STORY

SERVICE BAY AND

OFFICES
(E) ONE-STORY

OFFICES
(E) MAINTENANCE

BUILDING
(E) FILL MATERIAL

STORAGE
(E) STREET LIGHT

UTILITY BOX
(E) RECYCLED WATER

ACCESS BOX
(E) STORAGE
SHEDS

BRIGHTON RD
(E) GREEN ZONE SHORT TERM

PARKING

LANDSCAPING

SIDEWALK

CORP YARD

BUILDING

SITE SUMMARY - EXISTING
1740 SQFT
3480 SQFT
24260 SQFT
9409 SQFT

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:36:03 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

SITE PLAN - EXISTING
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A1.01

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
# DATE DESCRIPTION
PL.A1.01 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 01 - SITE PROGRAM - EXISTING - PLANNING

22.i
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) (N) 6 FEET HIGH

FENCE AND GATE
(E) CURB CUT (N) CURB CUT (E) CURB CUT
(E) BUS STOP
(E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING

BENCHES /

SITE FURNITURE

SIDEWALK
4' - 6"
(N) GENERATOR
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
P7
P8
P9
SID
E
WA
L
K
5' - 0".
(N) DISTRICT OFFICE ENTRANCE

PROPERTY LINE

BRIGHTON RD
F
RA
N
C
I
S
C
O
BLV
D

CLARENDON RD
(N) GATE
(N) AUTOMATIC GATE (N) PG&E

TRANSFORMER
17'
50'
8 9'
52' - 7 1/8"

TIME-LIMITED PARKING
8 6' - 4"
APN: 016322240
171 CLARENDON RD
APN: 016322040
178 BRIGHTON RD
32'
51'
BUILT 1972
APN: 016322130
159 CLARENDON RD
APN: 016322030
178 BRIGHTON RD
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G
E
V
P
A
R
KIN
G

ADA / EV

PARKING
P10
P11
P12
P13
P14
P15
P16
(N) SHOP

BUILDING

OPEN AIR

WASH RACK
(N) DIAG
O
N
A
L
PA
R
KIN
G
(N) PV
CANOPY
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S14
(N) TRASH

ENCLOSURE
(E) FILL

MATERIAL

STORAGE
(E) FUELING

STATION TO

REMAIN AS IS
(E) ACCESSIBLE PARKING

SPOT WITH (N) ACCESS

AISLE AND CURB RAMP
26' - 1 7/8"
55' - 8"

DRIVE THROUGH

WATER REFILL

STATION

EQUIPMENT FROM
(E) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
TO BE MOUNTED TO (E) 58' POLE
215' - 3"
172' - 7"
159' - 6"
PA
R
KING
P
A
R
KIN
G
VACUUM
TRUCK

BACKHOE MINI
DUMP
TRUCK

SERVICE
TRUCK

VACUUM PARKING PARKING PARKING
TRUCK
S17
S1
S11 S12 S13
S19
PA
R
KING
S20

END STALL IN A ROW OF

PARALLEL SPACES MAY BE
REDUCED TO 20 FEET PER
SEC 9-4.2817 OF THE
PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE.

END STALL IN A ROW OF PARALLEL
SPACES MAY BE REDUCED TO 20
FEET PER SEC 9-4.2817 OF THE
PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE.

PA
R
KING
S16
S15
PA
R
KING

PARKING
35' - 6"

ELEVATOR
SHAFT
ROOF
HATCH
ROOF

MONITOR
PA
R
KING
85'
58'
8' - 0"

TYPICAL STALL DIMENSIONS PER SEC
9-4.2817 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE.
24' - 0"

MECHANICAL SCREEN
S18

PARKING
24' - 0"
45°.
9' - 0"
19' - 0"

TYPICAL STALL

DIMENSIONS PER
SEC 9-4.2817 OF

THE PACIFICA
MUNICIPAL CODE.

PROPERTY LINES

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION

AND POST INDICATOR VALVE,
WITH (4) BOLLARDS

WASH RACK
RAMP

EV CHARGER

EV CHARGERS
(N) MAIN

SWITCHBOARD IN

LOCKABLE

ENCLOSURE
(N) 6 FEET HIGH

FENCE AND GATE
N

LANDSCAPING

SIDEWALK

CORP YARD

BUILDINGS

WATER FILL DRIVE

STAFF PARKING

PUBLIC PARKING

SITE SUMMARY - PROPOSED
2391 SQFT
3950 SQFT
19590 SQFT
11620 SQFT
1968 SQFT
20 16/14
CHANGE

FROM EXISTING
(DIAGONAL)
+651 SQFT
+960 SQFT
-4670 SQFT
+2211 SQFT
+2039 SQFT
+5 SPACES
+1 SPACES
% OF LOT AREA
(35223 SQFT)

6.8%
N/A

55.6%
33%
N/A
N/A
N/A
S#
P#
+651 SQFT
+960 SQFT
-4670 SQFT
+2211 SQFT
+2039 SQFT
+5 SPACES
-1 SPACES
CHANGE

FROM EXISTING
(PARALLEL)

DIAGONAL/PARALLEL
CLEARANCE REQUIRED PER PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9-4.2817 (FOOTPRINT)

OPERATION STAFF

ON SITE PARKING TABULATION - REQUIRED
ADMINISTRATION STAFF 8

MEDIUM CONFERENCE
12 10

MULTI PURPOSE ROOM

PARKING SPACES

REQUIRED

PARKING SPACES

PROPOSED
NCCWD EMPLOYEES 20

MEETING AND

CONFERENCE ROOM
NOTE: IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SAFE OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CORPORATION YARD, PUBLIC PARKING CANNOT BE PROVIDED ON-SITE.

OCCUPANT TYPE

SMALL CONFERENCE
8 78
6 OCCUPANTS
92 20
PER SECTION 9-4.2818(f)(8) OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE: One parking space for each employee on a maximum shift, plus parking spaces equal in number to ten (10%) percent of the capacity in persons of any conference and meeting room.
0 OPERATION STAFF

ON SITE PARKING TABULATION - EXISTING
ADMINISTRATION STAFF 8

MEETING ROOM
12 5

BOARD ROOM

PARKING SPACES
NEEDED

PARKING SPACES

EXISTING
NCCWD EMPLOYEES 15

MEETING AND

CONFERENCE ROOM

OCCUPANT TYPE
16 32

OCCUPANTS
48 20
0 WIDTH

DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARKING AREAS
LENGTH 19'
9'
90 DEGREE ANGLE

PARKING STALL

DRIVE AISLE

CLEARANCE
25'
ONE WAY 25'

TWO WAY
LENGTH
WIDTH

CLEARANCE
PER SECTION 9-4.2817 OF THE

PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS
DRAFT!

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:36:09 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A2.01

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
# DATE DESCRIPTION
PL.A2.01 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 01 - SITE PROGRAM - DIAGONAL PARKING - PLANNING

22.i
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 54'
1' BRIGHTON RD

FRANCISCO BLVD

CLARENDON RD
50 FEET WIDE
50 FEET WIDE
50 FEET WIDE

TWO-STORY

COMMERCIAL

BUILDING

SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING
(E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING (N) TWO-STORY

DISTRICT OFFICE
(N) COVERED

TRASH ENCLOSURE
(N) ONE AND A

HALF STORY

SHOP BUILDING
(N) PV
CANOPY
(N) RECYCLED WATER

DRIVE THROUGH

SLIDING GATES
(E) BUS STOP

SINGLE STORY
7-ELEVEN

PROPERTY LINE

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:36:12 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

SITE PLAN - CONTEXT
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A2.02

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A2.02 1/32" = 1'-0" 1 01 - SITE - PLANNING
# DATE DESCRIPTION

22.i
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Office - GM
Office - AGM
Office -
Accountant/HR
Office -
Management
Analyst 1
Small
Conference
Office - Cust
Service II
Wkstn - Cust
Service/ M.

Analyst
Wkstn Meter
Reader 2
Wkstn - Cust
Service Rep
Wkstn - Cust
Service Rep
Copy/Print/Mail
Area
Multi Occ Toilet Admin Archives
(F)
Office - Lead
Meter Reader
Hallway 4
Custodial
Electrical 1
Hallway 3
Hallway 5
Open Work Area
- 01
Reception
Counter
Swag
Closet
Public
Elevator
Multi Occ Toilet
(M)
Mud Room
Hallway 2
Unisex
Shower/
Changing
Lactation/Quiet
Room
Hallway 1
Wellness
Room
Lab inc Wkstn
Break Room
(E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING
1 PL.A3.31
________
2 PL.A3.31
________

NEW EXISTING
Elevator
Machine
Room

PROPERTY LINE
(E) PLANTER TO REMAIN

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:36:14 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District
FLOOR PLAN- 1ST
FLOOR
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A2.31

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A2.31 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 01 - FLOOR PLAN
# DATE DESCRIPTION

22.i
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

OPEN TO BELOW
Multipurpose
Room
Deck
Mechanical Shaft
AV
MultiPurpose
Room Storage
Elevator
Single Occ
Toilet
Single Occ
Toilet
Mechanical Public
Electrical 1
Server - IT
Hotel Wkstn - IT
Shared Office -
Senior Field
Office -
SCADA Office - Field
Supervisor
Office - AGM
OPs
O & M Library
Wkstn
Mgmt Analyst
Wkstn
O&M 2
Wkstn
O&M 3
Wkstn
O&M 4
Work Area
Wkstn
O&M 1
Wkstn
GIS
Wkstn -
Bookkeeper
Print Room
File Storage
Medium
Conference2
PL.A3.31
________

NEW EXISTING
(E) Mezzanine
Skylight Above

PROPERTY LINE

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:36:15 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District
FLOOR PLAN- 2ND
FLOOR
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A2.32

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A2.32 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 02 - FLOOR PLAN - PLANNING
# DATE DESCRIPTION

22.i
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")

02.1 - TOP OF (E) PARAPET
19' - 2" (+41' - 0 3/4")

NEW EXISTING

MAINTENANCE BUILDING

DECORATIVE METAL PANEL/TRELLIS FOR VINES

METAL SPANDRAL PANELS TO MATCH
BENT ALUMINUM WINDOW SHADES, TYP.

WEDGE SHAPED BUILDING

MOUNTED LIGHTING

02.2 - (N) PARAPET @ MAINTENANCE
21' - 8" (+43' - 6 3/4")
01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")

FINE SAND FINISH

STUCCO, TYP

BOARD FORMED

CONCRETE PLANTER
HORIZONTAL 6" SHIPLAP
CEDAR SIDING, PREWEATHERED FINISH, TYP
03 - TOP OF PARAPET
25' - 10" (+47' - 8 3/4")
12" TALL, BRUSHED STAINLESS STEEL LETTERS.

TOTAL BUILDING SIGNAGE AREA IS 40 SQFT.

SIZED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE, SEC 9-4.2906.

BOARD FORMED

CONCRETE STEM WALL

BENT ALUMINUM FRAME

EXTERIOR WINDOW SHADES

TOP OF SHOP BUILDING
17' - 0"
(E) ANTENNA, SEE

SOUTH ELEVATION

FOR FULL HEIGHT
06 - TOP OF MECH SCREEN
30' - 0" (+51' - 10 3/4")
07 - TOP OF CONDENSING UNIT
33' - 2" (+55' - 0 3/4")
08 - TOP OF EXHAUST VENT
35' - 9" (+57' - 7 3/4")
01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")

BOARD FORMED CONCRETE

STEM WALL, TYP
04 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
26' - 4" (+48' - 2 3/4")

GENERATOR

EXISTING NEW

MAINTENANCE BUILDING
05 - TOP OF ELEVATOR OVERRUN
27' - 10 1/4" (+49' - 9")
(E) POLE FOR EQUIPMENT
09 - TOP OF POLE
58' - 0" (+79' - 10 3/4")
08 - TOP OF EXHAUST VENT
35' - 9" (+57' - 7 3/4")
01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")
04 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
26' - 4" (+48' - 2 3/4")

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:37:10 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A3.11

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A3.11 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH - PLANNING
PL.A3.11 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 BUILDING ELEVATION - EAST - PLANNING
PL.A3.11 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH - PLANNING
PL.A3.11 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST - PLANNING
# DATE DESCRIPTION
(E) POLES AT (E) ADMIN BLDG WILL BE
REMOVED.

EQUIPMENT TO BE MOUNTED TO (E)
58' POLE AT MAINTENANCE BUILDING.

FENCE:

AMERISTAR

MONTAGE II

GENESIS
WALL FINISH:

STUCCO FINE

TEXTURE
WALL FINISH:

EXTERIOR

WEATHERED

WOOD SIDING
GLAZING:

LOW-E GLASS
WALL FINISH:

CONCRETE

BOARD FORM

22.i
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

FRANCISCO BLVD BRIGHTON RD
HIGHWAY 1

CLARENDON RD FRANCISCO BLVD BRIGHTON RD

VERTICAL STEEL

FLAT WELDED FENCE
(E) FLAG POLE
(E) STREET LIGHT
6' - 0"
12' - 0"

BUS STOP

PRE-FABRICATED METAL

AUTO SHOP BUILDING
(E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING
20 FT HIGH PROPOSED

SITE LIGHTING POLE

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:37:20 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
- SITE CONTEXT
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A3.12

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
# DATE DESCRIPTION
PL.A3.12 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH -SITE CONTEXT PL.A3.12 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 BUILDING ELEVATION - EAST - SITE CONTEXT PL.A3.12 1/16" = 1'-0" 4 BUILDING ELEVATION - THROUGH CORPORATION YARD

22.i
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) SLOPE:
1":12"
02 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
17' - 9" (+36' - 9")
01 - SHOP FLOOR
-2' - 10 3/4" (+19' - 0")
02 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
17' - 9" (+36' - 9")
01 - SHOP FLOOR
-2' - 10 3/4" (+19' - 0")
02 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
17' - 9" (+36' - 9")
01 - SHOP FLOOR
-2' - 10 3/4" (+19' - 0")
T.O. WASH RACK
2' - 10 3/4" (+23' - 0")

PAINTED STEEL SIDING
02 - TOP OF SLOPED ROOF
17' - 9" (+36' - 9")
01 - SHOP FLOOR
-2' - 10 3/4" (+19' - 0")
1 A2.42
4 A2.42
3 A2.42
1 PL.A3.13
2 PL.A3.13
3 PL.A3.13
127126
128

VEHICLE LIFT

OPEN AIR

WASH RACK
(N) EMAX SILENT

AIR COMPRESSOR

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:37:23 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
- SHOP BUILDING
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A3.13

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
9 ROOF - SHOP BUILDING
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 SHOP ELEVATION - EAST
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 SHOP ELEVATION - NORTH
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 SHOP AND TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION - SOUTH
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 SHOP ELEVATION - WEST
PL.A3.13 1/8" = 1'-0"
5 FLOOR PLAN - SHOP BUILDING
# DATE DESCRIPTION
WALL FINISH: METAL WALL PANEL
ROOF: STANDING SEAM METAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")
02 - FLOOR
12' - 0" AFF
03 - FLAT ROOF T.O.S.
24' - 0" AFF
12 2.13 3.14 4.1568 11 12

5.1 Server - IT Print Room Wkstn -
Bookkeeper Work Area
Medium
Conference
Copy/Print/Mail
Area
Office - Lead
Meter Reader
Hallway 4 Open Work Area
- 01
DEMO 1ST AND
2ND FLOOR

EXISTING TO

REMAIN UON

TOP OF (E) MAINTENANCE BUILDING

PARAPET
19' - 2" AFF
Lactation/Quiet
Room
(E) Mezzanine
01 - FLOOR
0' - 0" (+21' - 10 3/4")
02 - FLOOR
12' - 0" AFF
03 - FLAT ROOF T.O.S.
24' - 0" AFF
F
H I JE
Multipurpose
Room Medium
Conference
Public
Wellness
Room
Break Room Wkstn Meter
Reader 2
Office - Cust
Service II
Office - GM
Work Area O & M Library
Carport
PG&E Transformer

CARPORT
12' - 0" AFF

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
9/8/2022 1:37:25 PM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District CENTRAL.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

BUILDING SECTIONS
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/22
PL.A3.31

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
PL.A3.31 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 BUILDING SECTION - E/W
PL.A3.31 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 BUILDING SECTION - N/S
# DATE DESCRIPTION

22.i
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

GENERATOR
FUEL

STATION
STREET
LIGHT
FF: 22.60
12" RW
12" RW
6"W

RECYCLED WATER

FILL STATION
FORMER

MONITORING
WELL

ELECTRICAL AND
1" COPPER WATER

FOR FUEL STATION

SHUTOFF
FORMER

MONITORING
WELL
SDDI
RIM:18.14'
12" IN/OUT: 14.48'
SDDI
RIM:17.53'
12" SE-OUT:17.23'
DI BOTTOM:15.53' SD

OVERFLOW
RIM:17.68'
INV:16.05'
SD

OVERFLOW
RIM:18.35'

16.50'
SSCO
RIM:23.03'
INV:20.03'
SSMH
RIM:23.02'
10" E-IN:18.38'
6" N-IN:13.58'
10" W-OUT:18.06'
SSMH
RIM:19.38'
10" E-IN:13.18'
6" N-IN:13.88'
10" W-OUT:13.12'

SD VALVE
1 2"
S
D

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL
C1.00
JP JT
PLAN

CONDITIONS

EXISTING

22.i
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C2.00
JP JT
PLAN

HORIZONTAL CONTROL

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C2.01
JP JT

PAVING PLAN

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C3.00
JP JT

DRAINAGE PLAN

GRADING AND

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C3.01
JP JT

DRAINAGE PLAN

GRADING AND

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) SSMH
RIM:23.02'
10" E-IN:18.38'
6" N-IN:13.58'
10" W-OUT:18.06'
C4.00
JP JT

UTILITY PLAN

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) SD

OVERFLOW
RIM:18.35'

16.50'

SD VALVE
C4.01
JP JT

UTILITY PLAN

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) SD

OVERFLOW
RIM:18.35'

16.50'

SD VALVE
C5.00
JP JT

CONTROL PLAN

STORM WATER

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C5.01
JP JT

CONTROL DETAILS

STORM WATER

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C6.00
AZ JP

CONTROL PLAN

EROSION

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C6.01
AZ JP

AND DETAILS

CONTROL NOTES

EROSION

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) C6.02
JP JT

PRACTICES

BEST MANAGEMENT

SAN MATEO COUNTY

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
N&T JOB #

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL
1/25/2019 4:44:26 PM C:\Users\sophia.dechristopher\Documents\Urban_Tilth_Central_sophie.dechristopher.rvt 09/05/22
# DATE DESCRIPTION
APPROVALS DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
255 SHORELINE DRIVE
SUITE 200
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 482-6300
www.bkf.com

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

STORMWATER TREATMENT

PLANTER, SCD

STORMWATER TREATMENT

PLANTER, SCD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PLANTED LANDSCAPED AREA = 2,048 SF
SYMBOL ABBR. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING MATURE HEIGHT
MATURE

WIDTH WUCOLS
SALT

TOLERANT
MEL QUI MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA CAJEPUT TREE 36" BOX AS SHOWN 40' 35' VL Y PIT CRA PITTOSPORUM CRASSIFOLIUM GRAY PITTOSPORUM 36" BOX AS SHOWN 30' 15' VL Y LYO FLO LYONOTHAMNUS FLORIBUNDUS CATALINA IRONWOOD 36" BOX AS SHOWN 30' 15' VL Y TREE SCHEDULE:

SYMBOL ABBR. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING MATURE HEIGHT
MATURE

WIDTH WUCOLS
SALT

TOLERANT
RHA EVE RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'EVE CASE' EVE CASE COFFEE BERRY 15 GAL 5' O.C. 6' 6' L CHO TEC CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSH 5 GAL 4' O.C. 4' 4' L JUN PAT JUNCUS PATENS CALIFORNIA GREY RUSH 1 GAL 30" O.C. 2' 2' L ASC SPE ASCLEPIAS SPECIOSA SHOWY MILKWEED 1 GAL 3' O.C. 3' 3' L Y

STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL ABBR. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING MATURE HEIGHT
MATURE

WIDTH WUCOLS
SALT

TOLERANT
CEA SKY CEANOTHUS 'RAY HARTMAN' CALIFORNIA LILAC 15 GAL 4' O.C. 5' 6' L Y MYR CAL MYRICA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE 24 GAL 8' O.C. 15' 10' L Y RHA CAL RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LEATHERLEAF' LEATHERLEAF COFFEE BERRY 15 GAL 5' O.C. 6' 6' L Y ARC CAR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'CARMEL SUR' CARMEL SUR MANZANITA 5 GAL 3' O.C. 2' 8' L Y BAC PIG BACCHARIS PILULARIS 'PIGEON POINT' PIGEON POINT COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL 5' O.C. 18" 8' L Y ACH MIL ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM YARROW 5 GAL 18" O.C. 2' 2' L Y EPI CAN EPILOBIUM CANUM 'BERT'S BLUFF' BERT'S BLUFF CALIFORNIA FUSCHIA 5 GAL 2' O.C. 2' 3' L Y

ERI SPP ERIOGONUM SPP L Y
PLANT SCHEDULE:

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS
DRAFT! NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
JM
22007.00
02/21/22
75% DESIGN

DEVELOPMENT
# DATE DESCRIPTION
L1.00

PLANTING PLAN
0 10' 20' 40'
N
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

22.i
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) UPUP
S
MV
C S MV
C

POINT OF

CONNECTION,
SCD

IRRIGATION

CONTROLLER

POINT OF CONNECTION, SCD

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER

REMOTE CONTROL VALVES (PRESSURE REGULATING)
MEDIUM+HIGH FLOW LOW FLOW-DRIP ZONES
RAINBIRD PESB-PRS-D RAINBIRD 1ERIGATION CONTROL ZONE KITS PRESSURE REGULATING TYPE 1CZ-PRB-100-COM & 1CZ-PRB-150-COM LATERAL LINE: 1" AND LARGER, CLASS 200 PVC.

IRRIGATION LEGEND
(2) 4-STATION WEATHER BASED IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS W/ RAIN SENSOR.

INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

SLEEVE: CLASS 200 PVC, SIZE AS SHOWN

SUB-SURFACE DRIP ZONE
RAINBIRD 1FS-09-12 SUB-SURFACE DRIP LINE (12" EMITTER SPACING) W/ RB 1FS DRIP SYSTEM OPERATION INDICATOR AT END OF EACH DRIP ZONE.

LINE SPACING TO BE COORDINATED WITH PLANT SPACING (12", 18" & 24" O.C.) *INSTALL TWO DRIP EMMITTERS AT ROOTBALL FOR SHRUBS SPACED GREATER THAN 24" O.C.

ROOT WATERING SYSTEM
2 HALF GALLON BUBBLERS PER TREE

GATE VALVE
NIBCO T113-IRR (LINE SIZE)
QUICK COUPLING VALVE:

RAINBIRD 5-LRC, BRASS, LOCKING COVER, 1-PIECE BODY

CONTROLLER / STATION NUMBER

FLOW RATE (GPM)

VALVE SIZE (INCHES)
C
MAINLINE: SCH 40 PVC, 4" AND SMALLER

FLOW SENSOR

CTS FLOW SENSOR (SIZE PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND FLOW RANGE OF IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE ZONES).

MASTER VALVE

LINE SIZE, BRASS, GRISWOLD, NORMALLY OPEN
S
MV

BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE, SEE CIVIL

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS
DRAFT! NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
North Coast
County Water
District
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
JM
22007.00
02/21/22
75% DESIGN

DEVELOPMENT
# DATE DESCRIPTION
L2.00

IRRIGATION PLAN
0 10' 20' 40'
N
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

22.i
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) SWBD "MSA" - VOLTAGE DROP CALCULATIONS
NAME VOLTAGE PHASE AMPERAGE CABLE SIZE CONDUIT SIZE LENGTH (Ft) VOLTAGE DROP %VOLTAGE DROP SWBD "1DPA" 208V/120V 3PH 800 A 2 SETS of 4# 600KCMIL + 1 #1/0 G (2) 4" C 198 2.97 Volts 1.43% PANEL "1SA" 208V/120V 3PH 200 A (4) #3/0 AWG +1#6 G 2" C 145 3.85 Volts 1.85%

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE

1. SECTION 5.106.8 - LIGHT POLLUTION REDUCTION.

OUTDOOR LIGHTING SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING:
1) THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE FOR LIGHTING ZONES 1-4 AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 10 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. 2) BACKLIGHT, UPLIGHT AND GLARE (BUG) RATINGS AS DEFINED IN IESNA TM-15-11; 3) ALLOWABLE BUG RATINGS NOT EXCEEDING THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 5.106.8 OR COMPLY WITH A LOCAL ORDINANCE LAWFULLY ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 101.7, WHICHEVER IS MORE STRINGENT.

2. SECTION 5.505.1 - ENERGY EFFICIENCY

BUILDING SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), TITLE 24 - AS SHOWN IN THE ELECTRICAL TITLE 24 FORMS.

3. SECTION 5.410.4 - TESTING AND ADJUSTING

CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TESTING AND ADJUSTING SHALL PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CCR, TITLE 24, SECTION 130.4 - AS SHOWN IN THE ELECTRICAL TITLE 24 FORMS.

4. SECTION 5.410.4.3 - PROCEDURES

CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM TESTING AND ADJUSTING PROCEDURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH

MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS ON EACH SYSTEM - AS SHOWN IN THE ELECTRICAL TITLE 24 FORMS.

5. SECTION 5.410.4.4 - REPORTING

CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A FINAL REPORT OF TESTING SIGNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR PERFORMING THESE SERVICES.

6. SECTION 5.410.4.5 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) MANUAL

CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE BUILDING OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE WITH A DETAILED O&M INSTRUCTIONS AND COPIES OF GUARANTIES/WARRANTIES FOR EACH SYSTEM. O&M INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH OSHA REQUIREMENTS IN CCR, TITLE 8, SECTION 5142, AND OTHER RELATED REGULATIONS.

7. SECTION 5.410.4.5.1 - INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS

CONTRACTOR SHALL INCLUDE A COPY OF ALL INSPECTIONS VERIFICATIONS AND REPORTS REQUIRED BY THE ENFORCING AGENCY.

TYPE DESCRIPTION LOCATION VOLT
LED
LUMEN
OUTPUT

CCT / CRI WATTS
BUG
RATING
MOUNTING MANUFACTURER'S & CATALOG #
E1 ARCHITECTURAL LED WALL SCONCE, WITH INTEGRAL

MOTION SENSOR AND PHOTOCELL SENSOR FOR
PART-NIGHT CONTROLS.

OFFICE BUILDING

EXTERIOR
120V 1922 LM 3000K / 80 19 W B1
U0
G1

SURFACE LITHONIA LIGHTING
WDGE2LED-P2-30K-80CRI-T2M-MVOLT-PIR1FC3V
E2A ARCHITECTURAL LED WALL SCONCE, WITH INTEGRAL

MOTION SENSOR AND PHOTOCELL SENSOR FOR
PART-NIGHT CONTROLS.

OFFICE BUILDING

EXTERIOR STAIRWELL
120V 6922 LM 3000K / 80 52 W B1
U0
G2

SURFACE LITHONIA LIGHTING
WDGE3LED-P1-30K-80CRI-R3-MVOLT-PIR1HFC3V
E2B SIMILAR TO TYPE E2A, EXCEPT WITH TYPE 4

DISTRIBUTION

SHOP AND MAINTENANCE

BUILDING EXTERIOR YARD
120V 6922 LM 3000K / 80 52 W B1
U0
G2

SURFACE LITHONIA LIGHTING
WDGE3LED-P1-30K-80CRI-R4-MVOLT-PIRH1FC3V
E2C ARCHITECTURAL LED WALL SCONCE, WITH INTEGRAL

MOTION SENSOR AND PHOTOCELL SENSOR FOR
PART-NIGHT CONTROLS.

MAINTENANCE BUILDING

EXTERIOR STREET
120V 6922 LM 3000K / 80 50 W B1
U0
G1

SURFACE
+17' AFG.

LITHONIA LIGHTING
WSTLED-P3-30K-VF-MVOLT-PIRH1FC3V
E3 5" SQUARE DOWNLIGHT. OFFICE EXTERIOR CANOPY 120V 924 LM 3000K / 80 13 W B1 U0
G0

SURFACE

CEILING

LUMINIS LIGHTING
SQ510-L1L10-R30-120V-K3
E4 AREA LIGHTING LED, WITH INTEGRAL MOTION

SENSOR AND PHOTOCELL SENSOR FOR PART-NIGHT
CONTROLS, WITH HOUSE-SIDE-SHIELD. PROVIDE
WITH 18' SQUARE STRAIGHT POLE.

EXTERIOR YARD 120V 4910 LM 3000K / 80 54 W B1
U0
G2

POLE-MOUNTED
+20' AFG.

LITHONIA LIGHTING
DSX0 LED-P1-30K-T4M-MVOLT-HS
E5 SOLAR CARPORT LED, WITH INTEGRAL MOTION

SENSOR AND PHOTOCELL SENSOR FOR PART NIGHT
CONTROLS.

SOLAR CARPORT YARD 120V 3592 LM 3000K / 80 27 W N/A HOOK AND CORD +9' AFG

LITHONIA LIGHTING
VCVL LED-V4-P1-30K-80CRI-T5W-MVOLT-PIR3FCV
E6 LED WALLWASH FIXTURE, 0-10V DIMMABLE
ELECTRONIC DRIVER, WET LOCATION LISTED.

EXTERIOR SIGNAGE

PLANTER AREA
120V TBD TBD TBD N/A PLANTER ECOSENSE LIGHTING
TROV
TBD
CALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURES [ALTERATION]

REGISTERED PROF

ESSIONAL ENGINEER
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA
ELECT
RICA L
KENNY
Exp.

E 22687
03-21-23 MARINA
1133 POST STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109
TELEPHONE (415) 474-9500
FAX (415) 474-1363
GAYNER

ENGINEERS

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
8/30/2022 10:25:05 AM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District_E_v20.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

ELECTRICAL EXTERIOR

FIXTURE SCHEDULE
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/2022
E0.03
90% CONSTRUCTION

DOCUMENTS
# DATE DESCRIPTION

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) NO

PARKING

VEHICLE LIFT
1214 SF
New
Prefabricated
Metal Shop
Building
02-06
32-01 02-03
26-02
26-01
03-01
12-01
02-09
32-02
32-02
32-03
02-10
26-03
10-02
10-01
2 45
78 12 11 10 1
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16

DECK AT SECOND
FLOOR
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
EV

PARKING
A
D
A
/EV
P
A
RKIN
G
P
A
R
KIN
GP
A
R
KIN
G

PARKING

RECYCLED

WATER REFILL

STATION
NEW SHOP 25'
x 55'

RECYCLED
WATER

PULL-THROUGH

VEHICLE WASH
RACK - 20' x 32'

TRASH &

RECYCLING

ENCLOSURE

ENTRANCE

PROPERTY LINE

BRIGHTON RD

CLARENDON RD
UP
14 AC
6 8
F
HI 7
11 12
15 J
1 2
3 4
5 VWXYZ

2.1 3.1 4.1

5.1 13
E
10 G
9 003.2
003.1
001
100.1
130
1 A4.11
1 A4.21
6 A4.11
1 A8.72
1 A4.13
17 A2.52
18 A2.52 2A3.11
4 A3.11
3A3.1
1 1
A3.11
1 A3.31
________ _
4 A3.31
________ _
5 A3.31
________ _
3 A3.31
________ _
6 A3.31
________ _
2D3.1
1 4
D3.11
3 D

3.1 1
1 D3.11
11-05 Unisex
Shower/
Changing
106
MPOE
CLOSET
130

BRIGHTON ROAD

FRANCISCO BLVD
(E) GATE

PLANTER

PLANTER
NEW

CONSTRUCTION

EXISTING TO

REMAIN UON
UP
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
SSCO
SD

OVERFLOW
RIM:18.35'

16.50'

SD VALVE
WV
WV WV
FDC
WM
WV
CO
CO
CO
CO

RECYCLED

WATER REFILL

STATION
NEW SHOP 25'
x 55'

RECYCLED
WATER

PULL-THROUGH

VEHICLE WASH
RACK - 20' x 32'

TRASH &

RECYCLING

ENCLOSURE

FRANCISCO BLVD

BRIGHTON RD

CLARENDON RD
23456789
10 1
E2C E2C E2C
E1 E1 E1
E1
E1
E3
E1
E1
E1 E1
E2B E2B E2B
E2B
E2B
E2B
E2B E2B
E2B
E2B
E4A
E4A
E4A
E4A
E4A
E5
E5
E5
E2A
E1
E3
E6
E2A
E4A
1AEA-3 1AEA-3 1AEA-3
1AEA-3 1AEA-3 1AEA
-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3 1AEA
-3 1AEA-3
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1SEA-2
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-1
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
1AEA-3
E3
E3

REGISTERED PROF

ESSIONAL ENGINEER
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA
ELECT
RICA L
KENNY
Exp.

E 22687
03-21-23 MARINA
1133 POST STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109
TELEPHONE (415) 474-9500
FAX (415) 474-1363
GAYNER

ENGINEERS

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201
SEAL

APPROVALS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
8/30/2022 10:24:04 AM Autodesk Docs://North Coast Co Water District/North Coast Water Co District_E_v20.rvt North Coast
County Water
District

ELECTRICAL LIGHTING

PLAN - SITE
2400 Francisco Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
22007.00
09/05/2022
E1.02
90% CONSTRUCTION

DOCUMENTS
E1.02 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 01 - SITE - LTG
SHEET NOTES:

GENERAL NOTES:
1 LIGHTING IN LANDSCAPE AREA TO ILLUMINATE SIGNAGE.

1. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION DETAILS FOR EXACT MOUNTING HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS.

2. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF SITE WORK.

3. USE #10 AWG THWN-2 CU MINIMUM FOR SITE LIGHTING AND POWER.

4. WORK SHOWN ON THE ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC. FIELD

VERIFY EXACT LOCATION, ROUTING AND PROVIDE SITE PULLBOXES AS REQUIRED. ADJUST LOCATION +/- 6' AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. 1 # DATE DESCRIPTION

PLANNING APP -

RESUBMITTAL

22.i
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) 729 Heinz Avenue #7 | Berkeley CA 94710 | 510.542.2200 | www.nollandtam.com September 13, 2022
Helen Gannon
Associate Planner
City of Pacifica
Planning Department
Engineering Division of Public Works
540 Crespi Dr.

Pacifica, CA 94044-3422
RE: Determination of Incomplete Application – File No. 2022-007 for replacement/construction of a new two-story administrative office building and other site improvements on an approximately 0.8-acre (35,223 square foot) developed parcel located at 2400 Francisco Blvd. (APN 016-322-230).

Dear Helen,
We received the City of Pacifica’s Determination of Incompleteness #2 dated July 15, 2022 for 2400 Francisco Blvd. Noll and Tam Architects has prepared responses, indicated in bold text, to the Planning Department comments in the review letter.

Planning Department – Items Related to Application Completeness

1. Please prepare a traffic analysis that provides an estimate of additional vehicular trips generated by the proposed project. Prepare estimate in accordance with the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Trip Generation Manual” including all uses proposed at the site, including but not limited to regular NCCWD office and operational uses, customer service visits, recycled water filling by residents, etc.
a. This comment remains from the previous letter. The traffic analysis submitted on June 16, 2022, omitted all uses on site other than the office use. To staff’s knowledge, the site is also used for maintenance and auto repair. In reviewing the land uses provided in the ITE Manual, staff believes that “Utilities (LU 170)” could be applicable to the outdoor yard areas where various functions are performed, and “Automobile Care Center (LU 942)” could be applicable to the two maintenance bays included in the project. Please revise the submitted analysis to include any/all other land uses in operation on site.
[NT Response]: Please see attached trip generation study from W-Trans dated September 12, 2022. Our team has reviewed the categories provided within the 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and determined that site uses will be split between the “Government Office Building” (administrative staff and public areas) and

22.i
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Noll & Tam Architects | September 13, 2022 | NCCWD Replacement Admin Bldg Page 2 of 5 “Utility” (operations staff areas/storage/building services) land uses. “Automobile Car Center” is not an appropriate use as vehicle maintenance on site is limited in scope and dedicated to District vehicles. The square footages are limited to enclosed spaces as uses outside the building are considered supportive. They do not generate their own trips.

As reflected in the W-Trans report, this project is intended to provide District staff a safe and healthy work environment in order to support the District’s mission of providing a reliable, clean and safe water supply to the City of Pacifica. The number of staff, number of visitors, and type of onsite operations will remain the same.

2. The submitted noise study was reviewed and staff has the following comments:
a. PDF pg. 6 of the study states that the higher value of the ambient noise levels will be used for calculations throughout the report. However, the lower of the ambient levels should be used to result in a conservative analysis of change from the project. Please revise.
[NT/SFMI Response]: Report has been updated to use the lower of the ambient level.

See the bottom of page 7. While a minor increase to the calculated noise, the difference in outcome is indistinguishable to the human ear.

b. Please confirm the exact proposed scope of work on the top of PDF pg. 10. The description does not include the replacement of the compressor; however, the report discusses the replacement of the air compressor on the bottom of PDF pg. 10. The description should also clarify where the generator is being relocated. The Planning Drawing Set illustrates that the existing and proposed generator is in the same location. However, the study states that the generator will be located 20 feet closer to the property line. Please revise accordingly.
[NT/SFMI Response]: Scope updated on page 10 (now top of page 15, proposed site alternations). The generator is being replaced and the location is changing based on the footprint of the new administration building.

c. PDF pg. 11 discusses new HVAC components and states that the equipment and its noise levels have been analyzed. Please provide this information and the analysis required to demonstrate that the new equipment will not have a significant noise impact. Additionally, any rooftop enclosures that may be proposed to minimize noise levels will need to be reviewed as part of the building architecture review. [NT/SFMI Response]: See pages 16 and 17 for HVAC noise effect on neighboring properties. The maximum noise level is below the lowest measured ambient level. No noise-attenuating enclosure is required. A visual screen has been provided.

22.i
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Noll & Tam Architects | September 13, 2022 | NCCWD Replacement Admin Bldg Page 3 of 5

d. Provide additional information about the noise impact of the utility vehicles. As demonstrated on Figure 4 of the study, the maintenance vehicles account for spikes up to 80 dBA and up to 90 dBA in Figure 5.
i. Please elaborate on why the spikes caused by NCCWD maintenance vehicles should not be considered significant for purposes of the noise analysis. [NT/SFMI Response]: Of the documented site noise referenced in Figure 5, the only noises unique to the site use are the backup alarms which are required by CAL/OSHA. Please see extended analysis on pages 10, 11 and 14. They are a requirement of the existing function of the site.

e. Pursuant to the Noise Exposure Standards (Page 9-8) of the Pacifica General Plan1, sound attenuation must be provided for associated office, retail, and other noisesensitive indoor spaces sufficient to reduce exterior noise to an interior maximum of 50 DB CNEL. Please confirm that this standard is being met. [NT/SFMI Response]: In compliance with CAL Green, we have designed the building envelope to meet these requirements. See page 19 for further analysis.

Planning Department – Items Related to Application Completeness

1. The site plan on sheet PL.A2.01 seems to indicate that portions of the outdoor landscaping are outside property lines. An encroachment permit and maintenance agreement will be required with the City of Pacifica’s Engineering Division for the proposed landscaping (and irrigation, drainage, etc.) outside property boundaries.
[NT Response]: NCCWD will apply for an encroachment permit and develop a maintenance agreement with the City for the existing planter outside of the property boundaries.

2. Pursuant to Section 9-4.2818(f)(8) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, public utility and public service uses require one parking space for each employee on a maximum shift, plus parking spaces equal in number to 10% of the capacity in persons of any conference and meeting room. Although you provided information on maximum number of employees on site at any given time, the totals for conference/meeting room capacity were not provided. Even without adding these areas, it seems that the site would not meet off-street parking requirements and would require approval of a Parking Exception with the City. However, please provide the requested information and clearly demonstrate how many total parking spaces are required vs. how many are being provided pursuant to the PMC so the extent of any potential parking exception request can be determined. Note also that the City Council has implemented a Sharp Park Specific Plan area parking in-lieu fee that could be a component of the parking strategy for the project.

22.i
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Noll & Tam Architects | September 13, 2022 | NCCWD Replacement Admin Bldg Page 4 of 5 [NT Response]: Calculations have been updated based up on the referenced Pacifica Municipal Code. The required twenty parking spaces have been provided for District employee parking within the corporation yard. See PL.A2.01. In order to maintain safe and secure operations within the corporation yard, the ten public parking spaces cannot be provided on-site.

3. Please include the existing, or any proposed, antennas on the elevation sheets. [NT Response]: See 3/PL.A3.11 for height of existing antenna. No new antennas are proposed.

Engineering Division of Public Works

1. Diagonal parking shall be eliminated along Francisco Boulevard. The proposed diagonal parking area will create a hazardous condition with respect to traffic along Francisco Boulevard. This item was not addressed from the previous letter of incompleteness.
[NT/BKF Response]: The inclusion of diagonal parking area along Francisco Boulevard is pending based on further discussions between the City and the District. When District staff met with staff from the City of Pacifica Engineering Department on 5/5/2022, City staff requested a parking study to support the request for diagonal parking along Francisco Blvd.

NCCWD is working with W-Trans to provide the parking study as requested by the City that will evaluate potential transportation impacts associated with installation of diagonal parking along Francisco Boulevard. This study should be ready in the next week and will be sent to the City upon completion.

Department of Public Works Plan Check
Comments (Stormwater):
1) DMA 4 (which is untreated) and portions of the existing pavement to the west are directed into the DMA 2 bio-swale. The bio-swale is not sized to handle this runoff. The bio-swale should be increased in size to handle these areas, or the runoff should be bypassed around the swale in a closed pipe.
[NT/BKF Response]: DMA 2 and proposed site utilities have been revised to exclude runoff from existing pavement to drain into the bio-swale south of the new shop. Also, additional inlieu area has been added to accommodate untreated site improvements, see sheet C5.00. 2) The same applies to the DMA 5 sidewalk runoff, which drains onto DMA 6.

Note that if DMA’s 4 and 5 are actually treated, the alternate treatment areas could be reduced.
[NT/BKF Response]: The size of the flow-through planter at DMA 6 has been increased to

22.i
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) Noll & Tam Architects | September 13, 2022 | NCCWD Replacement Admin Bldg Page 5 of 5 accommodate runoff from the sidewalk improvements, see sheet C5.0 3) Provide a concrete valley gutter to channel runoff along the Francisco Boulevard frontage (following the old curb and gutter alignment where diagonal parking is being installed). [NT/BKF Response]: A concrete valley gutter to channel runoff along Francisco Boulevard Frontage has been added, see sheet C2.00.

Recommended Conditions of Approval
1) Plumb the proposed wash rack for vehicles to sanitary sewer. [NT Response]: Sanitary Sewer connection noted on C4.01 2) Install a cover for the fuel area
[NT Response]: No proposed change to existing fuel area. Existing to remain.

County of San Mateo Environmental Health

1. The following items were not addressed from the previous letter of incompleteness:
a. Please clarify if there are going to be any changes that affect the SPCC (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures) plan. This would entail any changes to tanks or containers above 55 gallons in capacity that contain petroleum and would include moving them. [NT Response]: No changes to the existing condition.
b. Confirm if there are going to be any new tanks (above ground or underground) added to the site. [NT Response]: No new tanks.
c. Please clarify whether there will be any other changes to previous operations regarding hazardous materials or waste. [NT Response]: No changes.

Attached for review are the revised plans. Should you have any questions, comments or need further clarification regarding the responses to the comments in this letter, please contact me at (510) 542-2220.

Sincerely,
Amy B. Watson
Architect, Senior Associate

22.i
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) READ 5/15/23 as a general public comment after this item was removed from Agenda (NCCWD).

I will be out of town June 13-mid-August, so I expect to be unable to participate when the is rescheduled, so I want to get this on the record.

Hi, I am Jim Kremer, resident of Sharp Park since 2008.

I was aware of the meeting tonight, and I was pleased that the Water District was getting a new headquarters, but I did not know that parts of it were controversial until I received a call from them today. I apologize I have not had time to review all the materials. I am a frequent dedicated client for RECYCLED WATER so I appreciated them reaching out. My comments relate to the drive-through water recycling aspect.

Water is such a precious resource. I trap rainwater in a 5000 gal cistern for landscaping, AND I STILL rely on the recycling program after that’s gone. I am sure you appreciate that encouraging recycling and making it more convenient to the community must be a very high priority! I was delighted to hear the Water District’s plans from March 2022 to change the layout so citizens will have drive-through access to that precious water longer hours and more days, saving staff time.

I really support this, for personal and city-wide reasons. & I can say with confidence that operating the pump-nozzle is something citizens CAN DO themselves. However based on what I hear, there seems to have been a breakdown in effective communication between Planning Staff and the WD staff working on the plans. I understand that the recommendations from Engineering were delayed in reaching the WD, and that the District staff’s attempts to respond went unanswered – though I accept that this was because ALL city staff are undeniably overworked. The traffic issues are real, I know, but signage and clear guidance to drivers can make it safe. Or other creative fixes! After all, this won’t have traffic like Highway 1 mid-day last Saturday and Sunday! & Busses are stopped there a few minutes an hour! Respectfully, may I suggest that failure to reach compromise is not acceptable. The WD is an important arm of city govt, just like the Planning Dept. Both of you have a mission to serve the city residents. You should share that goal. Pacifica is fortunate to have the luxury of abundant recycled water.

Facilitating efficient water use, especially through this service, plays the role of public education – making a statement– as well as serving the needs of conscientious water users.

I encourage you to work on this further with the WD. Together, I am certain that you can allow changes that they support in response to the valid engineering and traffic flow concerns. They say they are ready and willing to do this, which will encourage increased use of recycled water. It IS underutilized now, but you're appropriate response is TO FIX THAT and FACILITATE CONVENIENT DRIVE-THROUGH ACCESS.
>>> THANK YOU.

IF TIME: I really appreciate the hybrid meetings with Zoom!

22.i
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) From: City of Pacifica Website
To: Cervantes, Stefanie
Subject: May 15 Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 Comment Date: Monday, May 15, 2023 4:55:15 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Message submitted from the <City of Pacifica> website.

Site Visitor Name: Chris Duddy
Site Visitor Email: [email protected]
Good evening Stefanie,
I am planner with SamTrans and we wanted to express our support for the staff analysis and specifically Condition #24, or the reduction of the number of driveways to two (2) on Clarendon Road.

With the plans submitted with the third driveway, SamTrans has concerns over the ability for our transit vehicles to safely serve the stop (also a terminal for the 112) on Clarendon at Francisco between the two proposed driveways. The additional driveways increase the potential for accidents with a transit vehicle and the additional curb extension at the intersection would make it very difficult for our vehicles to serve the stop and be parallel with the curb, potentially having part of the vehicle in the traffic lane.

22.i
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal) From: Christian Cuneo
To: Public Comment
Subject: NCCWD HQ Project Appeal
Date: Sunday, August 6, 2023 8:47:57 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
My name is Christian Cuneo. I use the Residential Recycled Water Fill Station.

It is a great way to save drinking water for our community.

A self-service drive-though recycled water station would greatly benefit the community and increase my use.

I support the North Coast County Water District's appeal of the City Council's conditions Christian Cuneo
495 Kohala
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

22.i
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Attachment I - Public Comments (5431 : NCCWD Appeal)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/14/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Introduction of Ordinance and Policy on Pacifica Police Department Militarized Equipment and 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to take the following actions:

1. Waive the First Reading of and Introduce by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code Renewing the Military Equipment Policy; and

2. Approve the Pacifica Police Department 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (CEQA: The Ordinance and Policy are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because they will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a “project,” as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.)
STAFF CONTACT:

Maria Sarasua, Chief of Police
650-738-7314
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:

On September 30, 2021, California Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481) was signed into law.

Subsequently, California Government Code Sections 7070, 7071, and 7072 were adopted to codify the requirements set forth in AB 481.

AB 481 requires a law enforcement agency to obtain the approval of its governing body, through the adoption of a Military Equipment Use Policy, by ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to specified open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment, as defined. The bill allows the governing body to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards. AB 481 requires the governing body to annually review the ordinance and to either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for a type of military equipment or amend the military equipment use policy if it determines, based on an Annual Military Equipment Report prepared by the law enforcement agency, that the military equipment does not comply with the above-described standards for approval.

California Government Code Section 7070 provides a list of types of equipment that are to be 23 Packet Pg. 744
Pacifica City Council 2
August 14, 2023
considered “Military Equipment” for purposes of compliance with AB 481 and the Government Code. The Pacifica Police Department does not possess any equipment specifically designed for military use nor has the department acquired any equipment through a military surplus program, commonly known as the “1033 Program” (10 USC 2576a). The Pacifica Police Department does possess equipment that is listed in Section 7070 and defined as “Military Equipment.” Additionally, the Pacifica Police Department participates in a regional S.W.A.T. team, which possesses and utilizes additional types of equipment that qualify as “Military Equipment” according to the Government Code. The Pacifica Police Department also utilizes UAVs/Drones from the San Bruno Police Department.

On April 11, 2022, the Pacifica City Council approved the Military Equipment Use Policy (Pacifica Police Department Policy 705) and introduced an ordinance for the use and acquisition of military equipment by the Pacifica Police Department.

On April 25, 2022, the Pacifica City Council adopted Ordinance No. 877-C.S. approving the Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance codified in Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. This ordinance must be renewed each year in an annual Military Equipment Report.

DISCUSSION:

The 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report is attached to this Staff Report, and pursuant to AB 481, it includes the following:
• A summary of how the equipment was used and the purpose of its use. o All uses complied with this ordinance.
• A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the equipment. o There were none.
• The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the Military Equipment Use Policy, and any actions taken in response. o Nothing to report.
• The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the Annual Military Equipment Use Report
o See attached Annual Military Equipment Use Report
• The quantity possessed of each type of equipment.
o See attached Annual Military Equipment Use Report
• If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type.
o No intention to acquire additional equipment currently.

During the reporting period, there were no uses of equipment covered by this ordinance that were not compliant with the Military Equipment Use Ordinance and the Military Equipment Use Policy. The Police Department did not acquire any new military equipment during the reporting period, nor does it have any plans to acquire new military equipment for the remainder of 2023. 23 Packet Pg. 745
Pacifica City Council 3
August 14, 2023
AB 481 prescribes an annual process for reviewing the policy and renewing the ordinance.

Specifically, Government Code Section 7072 requires the Police Department to submit to the City Council an annual military equipment report, and to hold at least one “well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.” Then, to renew Ordinance No. 877- C.S., Government Code Section 7071 requires the City Council to determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted by the police department, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval.

The Pacifica Police Department held a “well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting at Pacifica Java on June 14, 2023. The Police Department also submitted the Annual Military Equipment Use Report to the Council on June 4, 2023.

The City Council meeting on August 14, 2023, is intended to satisfy all of the requirements of AB 481 and allow the Council to consider the Annual Military Equipment Use Report and whether the use of military equipment complied with the standards of use in the Policy in order to determine whether to renew Pacifica Police Department’s Military Equipment Policy by introducing an ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

CEQA:

The Ordinance and Policy are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because they will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a “project,” as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

1. Decline to repeal and replace Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code and decline to renew the Military Equipment Policy.

2. Decline to approve the Pacifica Police Department Military Equipment Annual Report and provide staff further direction.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Adoption of an Ordinance approving the Pacifica Police Department Military Equipment Policy resonates with the City Council Goal of An Engaged Community and Maintaining a Safe Community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

ORIGINATED BY:
23 Packet Pg. 746
Pacifica City Council 4
August 14, 2023
Police
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (DOCX) Attachment B - Military Equipment Policy #705 (PDF)
Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (PDF)
23 Packet Pg. 747
Pacifica City Council 5
August 14, 2023
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 5432)
ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 19, “ACQUISITION AND USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT” OF TITLE 4 “PUBLIC SAFETY” OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE RENEWING THE

MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481, codified at California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, solicitation, or use of military equipment; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481, requires that the approval by the governing body be by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body of a city to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations with respect to a military equipment use policy; and WHEREAS, a draft of the Pacifica Police Department Policy 705 “Military Equipment” was published on the Department’s internet website, and provided to the City Council at least 30 days prior to public hearing in accordance with requirements of Government Code section 7071; and
WHEREAS, the Pacifica Police Department’s Lexipol Policy 705 “Military Equipment” meets the requirements of California Government Code section 7070, subdivision (d); and
WHEREAS, the military equipment identified in Policy 705 “Military Equipment” is necessary, because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety; and
WHEREAS, Policy 705 “Military Equipment” will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; and
WHEREAS, the military equipment identified in Policy 705 “Military Equipment” is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 877-C.S. which became effective on May 25, 2022, adopting the City of Pacifica’s Military Equipment Policy, Lexipol Policy 705 “Military Equipment”; and
23 Packet Pg. 748
Pacifica City Council 6
August 14, 2023
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 7071(e), the Police Department has prepared the 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report 2022 (“Report”), which was made available to Council on June 4, 2023, and made available to the public on the Pacifica Police Department’s website on June 2, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Police Department held a well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting at Pacifica Java on June 14, 2023, where the public discussed and asked questions regarding the Report and the Pacifica Police Department’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has been presented with the Report by the City of Pacifica Police Department and has determined that use of each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time and satisfies all of the requirements specified in Government Code section 7072.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DOES ORDAIN AND FIND AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Policy Renewed. The City Council finds that the Report by the City of Pacifica Police Department meets the requirements of Government Code section 7072 and the use of military equipment complied with the standards of use authorized. Therefore, the City Council hereby renews and adopts the Pacifica Police Department’s Policy 705 “Military Equipment”, found here: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/police/transparency

Section 3. Repeal and Replacement of Chapter 19. Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and shall be replaced to read as follows:
“The Pacifica Police Department’s Policy 705 “Military Equipment” shall be maintained on the Pacifica Police Department’s website.” Section 4. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance and the City of Pacifica Police Department’s Policy 705 and the Annual Report are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because they will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a “project,” as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
23 Packet Pg. 749
Pacifica City Council 7
August 14, 2023
Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council ofthe City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State Law.

Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the ______ day of _______ 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

CITY OF PACIFICA
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 23 Packet Pg. 750
Pacifica City Council 8
August 14, 2023
* * * * *
(ID # 5432) at 8/14/2023 5:45 PM City Council Regular Meeting 23 Packet Pg. 751
ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 1
Military Equipment Use
Annual Report 2022

23.a
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 2
Executive Summary
On September 30, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Assembly Bill 481, requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from the applicable governing body (City Council), by adoption of a military equipment use policy. The Pacifica Police Department is required to seek City Council approval of their Military Equipment Use Policy at a regular open meeting prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment. The term “military equipment,” as used in AB 481, does not necessarily indicate equipment used by the military. Items deemed by the bill to be “military equipment” include commonly used law enforcement tools such as unmanned aircraft systems, armored rescue vehicle, less-than-lethal weapons, certain types of semi-automatic rifles, and etc.

Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body to approve the funding, acquisition, and use of this equipment within its jurisdiction, only if it determines that the equipment meets specified standards. The Military Equipment Use Policy is subject to City Council review to determine whether the standards set forth in Assembly Bill 481 have been met, based upon an Annual Military Equipment Use Report.

Finally, Assembly Bill 481 requires publication of the Military Equipment Use Policy and the Annual Military Equipment Use Report on the Department’s website.

Assembly Bill 481 California Government Code section 7072 states the following:

A. A law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy pursuant to Section 7071 shall submit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The law enforcement agency shall also make each annual military equipment report required by this section publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
a. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. b. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
c. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.

23.a
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 3
d. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
e. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. f. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

B. Law enforcement agency shall hold at least one well- publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

The Pacifica Police Department is committed to transparency, public trust, community partnerships, and compliance with the law. As such, the Department has authored the following 2022 Military Equipment Use Report per annual reporting requirements outlined in California Government Code section 7072.
_______________________________________
Introduction
The Pacifica Police Department possesses and employs a variety of equipment to serve and protect the community. The term “military equipment,” as used in AB 481, does not necessarily indicate equipment used by the military. Items deemed by the bill to be “military equipment” include commonly used law enforcement tools such as unmanned aircraft systems, armored rescue vehicle, less-than-lethal weapons, certain types of semi-automatic rifles, and etc. Each tool has proven effective in mitigating risk to both the public and officers. The equipment discussed in this annual report will include “military equipment” maintained and utilized by the Pacifica Police Department.

The Pacifica Police Department recognizes that critical incidents are unpredictable and dynamic. Various equipment options can greatly assist incident commanders, officers, and specific units in bringing those incidents to a swift resolution in a safe manner. The use of military equipment is restricted to certain instances and, in some cases, by specifically trained officers. The use of the department’s military equipment is continuously evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances, public safety, officer safety, civil rights, state law, and

23.a
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 4
information available at the time of use influences the use of such equipment by department personnel.

It is incumbent upon our police department’s personnel to recognize the circumstances wherein specialized equipment should be employed to enhance the safety of the public and officers and to bring a critical incident to a safe outcome. This Military Equipment Use Report outlines a summary of equipment usage guidelines, inventory, fiscal impact, complaints, and reported concerns from January 1st, 2022, thru December 31st, 2022.

The Pacifica Police Department does not possess any tactical equipment that it has obtained from the military, nor does it possess any equipment that was designed for military use. The Pacifica Police Department also has not acquired any equipment through military surplus programs such as the 1033 Program.
_______________________________________
California Government Code §7070(d) describes a Military Equipment Use Policy as a publicly released, written document that includes, at a minimum, all of the following:

1. A description of each type of Military Equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the Military Equipment.

2. The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of Military Equipment.

3. The fiscal impact of each type of Military Equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.

4. The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use.

5. The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of Military Equipment to ensure the full protection of the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the Military Equipment use policy.

6. The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the Military Equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.

7. For a law enforcement agency, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of Military Equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.

23.a
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 5
California Government Code § 7070(c) defines Military Equipment as any of the following:

1. Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles.

2. Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers.

However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

3. High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

4. Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.

5. Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.

6. Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.

7. Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

8. Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

9. Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision.

10. Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency.

11. Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.

12. "Flashbang" grenades and explosive breaching tools, "tear gas," and "pepper balls," excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.

13. Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).

14. The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, "bean bag," rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.

15. Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

16. Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), "Military Equipment" does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.

23.a
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 6
Summary
The Pacifica Police Department (PPD) has equipment meeting 4 of the 15 categories requiring reporting by AB 481 and Department Policy 705 in 2022. The equipment has been used minimally, largely related to training and certification. The City has not received any complaints, audits, or policy violations regarding the use or acquisition of the equipment. The Pacifica Police Department has diligently followed the established Department Policy 705, ensuring transparency and accountability in its operations. Plans for future equipment purchases meeting the reporting requirements of AB 481 are minimal and mostly focused on replacing or replenishing equipment used throughout the year.

Military Equipment Definitions & Status in Pacifica:

The following is a list of the Military Equipment, as defined in Department Policy 705, and an overview of how it is used by the Pacifica Police Department in 2022:
“Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles” The Police Department currently does not own or operate an UAS/Drone. However, it does utilize San Bruno PD’s drones in specific incidents such as search and rescue operations, tactical operations, and during searches for outstanding suspects of crimes. They are strictly surveillance drones and are not weaponized.
“Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded.” The Police Department does not utilize or operate any tracked vehicles of any kind. Armored Rescue Vehicle (ARV) are specifically use by first responders. They offer ballistic protection in emergencies where an armed encounter is likely. The ARV are also used to evacuate citizens from an area where a threat from an armed suspect exists. “High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded.”
The Police Department does not use high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), Humvees, or similar vehicles, nor does it use large trucks, as described in this section. Some armored rescue vehicle (ARV) can have a breaching ram mounted to its front. This tool has proven helpful for safely opening front doors without exposing officers to danger by having them approach the door on foot. Breaching an entry point is often the most dangerous part of a high-risk entry to a structure. This breaching option results in a reduced likelihood of a confrontation during entry

23.a
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 7
“Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.”
The Police Department does not utilize tracked vehicles of any kind. “Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.”
The Police Department currently has one marked Police Command trailer used to sustain law enforcement incidents. It is used as a command post for law enforcement incidents, including, but not limited to DUI checkpoints, major collision scenes, major crime scenes, or other sustained incident where access to law enforcement computers, communication equipment and shelter is required. Grant funds (OTS) were the primary source of funding for this piece of equipment.
“Weaponized aircraft, vessels or vehicles of any kind.” The Police Department does not utilize weaponized aircraft, vessels or vehicles of any kind. “Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.” The Police Department does not use explosive breaching devices. Due to the construction of doors in commercial, government, and school buildings, more than manual breaching equipment such as single-person rams and pry bars are required to gain entry to many structures rapidly.
“Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.”
The Police Department does not utilize any firearms of .50 caliber or greater. “Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision.”
The Police Department does not utilize any ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. “Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency.” The Police Department possess 16 semi-automatic, 16” barrel, Smith & Wesson M&P patrol rifles, defined as assault weapons, under the California Penal Code. Police officers are required to complete a 4-hour in-house training course with a certified range instructor prior to deploying the weapon out in the field. Officers will also attend a certified California

23.a
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 8
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) rifle training course. Patrol rifles allow officers to address lethal threats with precision from a distance. Compared to handguns, they are more accurate at greater distances. The rifles use standard law enforcement ammunition, and their use and deployment are outlined in PPD Policy 306.

The department possess 3 semi-automatic, 11.5” barrel, Colt M4 Commando rifles, defined as assault rifles. The rifles are short-barreled rifles which allow a trained officer better control inside of structures with greater accuracy, rapid response, maneuverability and enhanced firepower in critical situations. The Colt rifles are typically used by trained SWAT officers.

The department maintains a supply of .223 Winchester duty and training ammunition. These are maintained by the range staff and secured in the department armory. “Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.” The Police Department does not use any firearm designed to launch explosive projectiles. “’Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,” excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.” The Police Department does not utilize noise-flash diversionary devices known as “flashbangs” or “tear gas”. Noise-flash diversionary devices are used to cause a distraction during highly dangerous activities, such as entering a structure during warrant service. The use of this equipment is intended to minimize injury to officers and suspects. “Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).”
The Police Department does not utilize any of the described devices. Taser Shockwave is a device built by Axon Technologies to deny entry to certain areas and has no law enforcement application. Long-Range Acoustic Devices have applications to deliver highly audible public addresses.
“The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.” The Pacifica Police Department possesses 11 clearly marked Mossberg 590 Tactical, 12-guage, less-than-lethal shotguns. The less-than-lethal shotguns are a de-escalation tool where lethal force is not appropriate or undesirable. The shotguns fire a ballistic fiber bag, “Super-Sock”, filled with approximately 40 grams of shot at a velocity of approximately 270 feet per second.

Officers are required to complete a 4-hour in-house training course with a certified range instructor prior to deploying the shotguns out in the field.

23.a
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 9
The Pacifica Police Department possesses 2 Pepperball FTC launchers. The FTC Launchers function similarly to a paintball gun which deploys PAVA powder projectiles. FTC Launchers are intended to be used as less-than-lethal impact devices, an alternate to a higher level of force.

Officers are required to complete a 2-hour in-house training course with a certified Pepperball instructor prior to deploying the launchers out in the field.

Summary of Military Equipment Usages
The Pacifica Police Department's military equipment inventory is wide-ranging, and the equipment is not utilized on all calls for service. This section outlines the military equipment usage from January 1st, 2022, thru December 31st, 2022. Certain items of military equipment, particularly consumables (ammunition, less-than-lethal rounds, PAVA projectiles, etc.), are used throughout the year regularly for training to maintain proficiency. Usage in training environments is not captured in this annual report. The usage section of this report provides data for the operational use of military equipment listed within this Annual Military Equipment Use Report.

Military Equipment Item Authorized
Usage
Citizen
Complaints
Internal
Audits
Policy
Violations
UAS/Drone 5 0 0 0
UGV/Avatar Robot N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mine-resistant ambush-protected
(MRAP) vehicle/Armored Personnel
carrier

N/A N/A N/A N/A
High mobility multipurpose wheeled
vehicles (HMMWV)

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tracked armored vehicles that provide
ballistic protection

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mobile Command Vehicle (Trailer) 5 0 0 0
Weaponized aircraft, vessels or
vehicles

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Battering rams, slugs, and breaching
apparatuses that are explosive in
nature
N/A 0 0 0
Firearms of .50 caliber or greater N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater N/A N/A N/A N/A
Smith &Wesson Patrol Rifles 0 0 0 0
Any firearm or firearm accessory that
is designed to launch explosive
projectiles

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Noise-Flash Diversionary device /
“Tear Gas”

N/A N/A N/A N/A

23.a
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 10
Taser Shockwave, microwave
weapons, water cannons, and the
Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD)

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mossberg 590 tactical “Less-thanlethal” Shotguns1 0 0 0 FTC Launchers (Pepperball) 0 0 0 0
Category 1: Unmanned, Remotely Piloted, Powered Aerial or Ground Vehicles • Equipment Name: The DJI Matrice 210: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS/Drones) • Summary of Use and Purpose: The Pacifica PD utilized San Bruno PD’s (SBPD) UAS/Drones on five separate occasions in 2022. These incidents consisted of search and rescue efforts, suspect apprehension, crime documentation and tactical operations.

The UAS/Drones are remotely piloted aerial vehicle capable of providing live and recorded video images captured from aerial positions. Personnel are authorized to request a UAV when the lawful use may increase safety to officers or would be a more efficient way of searching an area for a missing person or for the documentation of a crime scene.
• Quantity Owned: N/A-Owned and operated by SBPD.
• Costs: N/A-Owned and operated by SBPD.
• Summary of Complaints: N/A-Owned and operated by SBPD. • Audits, Policy Violations, Actions in Response: N/A-Owned and operated by SBPD. • Future Purchases: N/A-Owned and operated by SBPD.

Category 5: Command and Control Vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units • Equipment Name: Mobile Command Trailer (MCT)
• Summary of Use and Purpose: The MCT was deployed at a few events in 2022 to support the management of incidents and planned events by providing interior and/or exterior workspaces, and command and control capabilities to the Incident Commander on-scene or at remote locations.

1. (2 Days) DUI Checkpoints

2. (2 Days) Pacifica Fog-Fest

3. (1 Day) Fourth of July Detail
• Quantity Owned: (1) Mobile Command Trailer (TPD 24’X8.5’ tandem special Ops trailer) • Cost: Approximately $50,000.
• Summary of Complaints: There were no reported complaints regarding this equipment. • Audits, Policy Violations, Actions in Response: There were no violations of policy, no actions taken in response, and no internal audits.

23.a
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 11
• Future Purchases: There are no plans to acquire additional vehicles in the upcoming year.

Category 10: Specialized Firearms and Ammunition of less than .50 caliber • Equipment Name: Smith & Wesson M&P patrol rifles and Colt M4 Commando rifles. • Summary of Use and Purpose: The patrol rifles were not utilized out in the field in 2022.

The rifles were mainly used during training and range purposes. Patrol officers may deploy the rifle in any circumstance where the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. The rifles allow officers to address lethal threats with precision from a distance. Compared to handguns, they are more accurate at greater distances
• Quantity Owned: (16) Smith & Wesson M&P patrols rifles. (3) Colt M4 Commando rifles • Ammunition: Approximately 3,000 rounds (.223 Winchester Remington) • Cost: Approximately $1,000-$1,500 in 2022.
• Summary of Complaints: There were no reported complaints regarding this equipment. • Audits, Policy Violations, Actions in Response: There were no violations of PPD Policy 306 or 705, no actions taken in response, and all weapons were accounted for in the internal annual audit.
• Future Purchases: There are no plans to acquire additional patrol rifles in the upcoming year. The Police Department anticipates purchasing approximately $1,500 worth of ammunition (approximately 1500-2000 rounds) from the general fund in the fiscal Year 2023-24 for training purposes.

Category 14: Kinetic Energy Weapons and Specialty Munitions (Less-than-lethal Shotguns)
• Equipment Name: Mossberg 590 Tactical 12-gauge shotguns (Less-than-lethal) • Summary of Use and Purpose: The Mossberg less-than-lethal shotgun was utilized on one occasion in 2022, during a report of a subject armed with a knife. The less-thanlethal shotgun was deployed twice during the incident and suspect was safely apprehended without further threat to the public. The less-than-lethal shotguns were mostly deployed in training to maintain certification and/or proficiency. The less-thanlethal shotguns can help de-escalate and limit the escalation of conflict where effective without the need for lethal force in situations such as, but not limited to, selfdestructive subjects, dangerous, and/or combative individuals, riot control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, training exercises, or approved demonstrations. • Quantity Owned: (11) Mossberg 590 Tactical 12-gauge shotguns (Less-than-lethal) • Cost: Approximately $560 for each shotgun in 2022.

23.a
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 12
• Ammunition: CTS Super Sock rounds: 165 rounds purchased in 2022, approximately $5.85 per round.
• Summary of Complaints: There were no reported complaints regarding this equipment. • Audits, Policy Violations, Actions in Response: There were no violations of PPD Policy 303 or 705, no actions taken in response, and all weapons were accounted for in the internal audit.
• Future Purchases: There are no plans to acquire additional Less-than-lethal shotguns in 2023, but additional munition purchases may be made as needed to replace depleted supply due to operational use out in the field, or for training purposes. The Police Department anticipates purchasing approximately $415 worth of munitions (approximately 65 rounds) from the general fund in the fiscal Year 2023-24 for training purposes.

Category 14: Kinetic Energy Weapons and Specialty Munitions (Pepperball FTC Launcher)
• Equipment Name: FTC Launcher (Less-than-lethal)
• Summary of Use and Purpose: The FTC Launchers were not utilized in the field in 2022, but were deployed in training to maintain certification and/or proficiency. The FTC Launchers can help de-escalate and limit the escalation of conflict where effective without the need for lethal force in situations such as, but not limited to, selfdestructive subjects, dangerous, and/or combative individuals, riot control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, training exercises, or approved demonstrations. The FTC launchers are air powered and use compressed air to launch LIVE-X projectiles. The Live-X projectiles contain a concentrated amount (5%) of PAVA pepper powder. The projectiles have a direct impact of approximate 60ft and an area saturation of 150ft. • Quantity Owned: (2) Pepperball FTC Launchers (Less-than-lethal) • Cost: Approximately $591 each.
• Ammunition: Pepperball Live-X projectile Rounds: 90 rounds purchased in 2022, approximately $322.
• Summary of Complaints: There were no reported complaints regarding this equipment. • Audits, Policy Violations, Actions in Response: There were no violations of PPD Policy 303 or 705, no actions taken in response, and all weapons were accounted for in the internal audit.
• Future Purchases: There are no plans to acquire additional FTC Launchers in 2023, but more Live-X projectile purchases may be made as needed to replace depleted supply due to operational use out in the field, or for training purposes. The Police Department anticipates purchasing approximately $322 worth of projectiles (approximately 90 rounds) from the general fund in the fiscal Year 2023-24 for training purposes.

23.a
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 13
Inventory by Equipment
January 1st, 2022, thru December 31st, 2022.

The inventory of certain items of consumable military equipment (i.e., ammunition, parts, etc.) frequently fluctuates throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. While the Pacifica Police Department strives to provide accuracy in its inventory reporting, this report reflects approximations of certain consumable items of military equipment during the period listed above.

Mobile Command Trailer
Equipment Name: Mobile Command Trailer
Quantity: 1 Lifespan: 20-25 years
Capabilities: Provide a mobile command platform for special events, critical incidents, natural disasters, major crime scenes, major collision scene, DUI checkpoints, or other sustained law enforcement incidents. The vehicle will be equipped with computer and radio communications equipment, phone and internet access
Manufacturer’s Description: TPD 24’ x 8.5’ tandem, 5k Axle Special Ops trailer.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: To be used as a Command Post for sustained law enforcement incidents, including, but not limited to DUI checkpoints, major collision scenes, major crime scenes, or other sustained incidents where access to law enforcement computers, communication equipment and shelter is required.

Fiscal Impacts: The cost of a mobile command trailer was approximately $50,000, with ongoing vehicle and equipment maintenance costs. Grant funds were the primary source of funding for this piece of equipment.

Annual Maintenance: Cost is estimated to be $1500, service or parts.

Personnel Cost: TBD
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Deployment of trailer is only allowed upon authorization of the Watch Commander or Division Commander.

Required Training: 1-hour of in-house training regarding safe deployment, operational use and stationing of the trailer.

Other Notes: None
Smith & Wesson M&P Patrol Rifles
Equipment Name: Smith & Wesson M&P AR-15 Patrol Rifles
Quantity Owned/Sought: 16 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15-20 years Equipment Capabilities: Capable of firing .223 and .556 ammunition

23.a
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 14
Manufacturer’s Description: The AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is a lightweight, 16’’ barrel, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle modeled after the military classic M4 Rifle.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Patrol officers may deploy the rifle in any circumstance where the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. The rifles allow officers to address lethal threats with precision from a distance. Compared to handguns, they are more accurate at greater distances and can penetrate most body armor.

Fiscal Impacts: The rifles were purchase in 2019. The initial cost of each rifle was estimated to be $552.56. After trade-in rebates and accessories, the total cost of the 16 rifles was approximately $3,924.92.

Annual Maintenance: Approximately $500, depending on type of maintenance needed.

Personnel Cost: Approximately $500-1000, depending on training costs.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: PPD Policy 306 covers deployment, use, care, and maintenance of rifles. All applicable Local, State, and Federal laws governing police use of force. All applicable PPD policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Training Required: Prior to deploying the rifle, officers will complete a 4-hour in-house course presented by a POST certified approved instructor, followed by proficiency qualification. Officers will also complete a P.O.S.T. certified 16-hour patrol rifle course of instruction on use, deployment, and maintenance of the rifles. P.O.S.T. also requires four hours of tactical firearm instruction every two years for officers and this training is facilitated by P.O.S.T. certified rifle instructors.

Other Notes: None

Colt M4 Commando Rifles
Equipment Name: Colt M4 Commando AR-15 Rifle
Quantity Owned/Sought: 3 owned Lifespan: 15-20 years
Equipment Capabilities: Capable of firing .223 and .556 ammunition Manufacturer’s Description: The Colt M4 Commando semi-automatic AR-15 rifle is a lightweight, 11.5’’ barrel, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: The Colt M4 rifles serve the same function as patrol rifles. It is a short-barreled rifle which allows a trained officer better control inside the structures with greater accuracy, rapid response, maneuverability in critical situations. The Colt rifles are intended to be used by members of the SWAT team. However, officers that have completed a certified POST rifle course are authorized to use it out in the field.

Fiscal Impacts: The rifles were initially purchased in 2005. There is no record of purchase available because records are only maintained since 2016. The current cost for one rifle is approximately $1,085.57 each.

Personnel Cost: Approximately $500, depending on training needs and costs.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: PPD Policy 306 covers deployment, use, care, and maintenance of rifles. All applicable Local, State, and Federal laws governing police use of force. All applicable PPD policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

23.a
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 15
Training Required: Prior to deploying the rifle, officers will complete a 4-hour in-house course presented by a POST certified approved instructor, followed by proficiency qualification. Officers will also complete a P.O.S.T. certified 16-hour patrol rifle course of instruction on use, deployment, and maintenance of the rifles. P.O.S.T. also requires four hours of tactical firearm instruction every two years for officers and this training is facilitated by P.O.S.T. certified rifle instructors.

Other Notes: None
Less-than-lethal Shotguns
Equipment Name: Mossberg 590 Tactical (less-than-lethal) Shotguns Quantity Owned/Sought: 11 owned Lifespan: 15 years
Equipment Capabilities: Capable of firing “less-than-lethal” 12-gauge CTS Super Sock rounds Manufacturer Product Description: The Mossberg 590 Tactical shotgun is one of the most durable pump action shotguns, meeting MIL-SPEC 3443G, with its heavy-walled barrel, metal trigger guard and safety, clean out mag tube, and parkerized finish. The dedicated less-thanlethal shotguns are distinguishable by an orange butt-stock and fore-grip. The range of the weapon system helps to maintain space between officers and a threat reducing the immediacy of the threat which is a principle of de-escalation.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: The less-than-lethal shotguns provide alternative levels of force to overcome resistance when reasonably necessary in accordance with policy and law.

Fiscal Impacts: The less-than-lethal shotguns were purchased in 2022. The initial cost for the 11 shotguns, orange fore-grips with lighting system, and orange butt-stocks was approximately $5,849.58.

Annual Maintenance: Approximately $100-$500, depending service and parts needed.

Personnel Cost: Approximately $100-&300, depending on training needs and cost.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All use of force applications is governed by state law (including Penal Code section 13652) and PPD Policy Sections 303.

Training Required: Officers who have been trained and completed a training course with a certified instructor on the shotguns may deploy them. Officers receive initial training upon hire and annual training thereafter.

Other Notes: None
CTS Super Sock Impact Munitions
Equipment Name: CTS Super-Sock Impact Munitions
Quantity Owned/Sought: Approximately 90-150 owned Lifespan: Depends on storage Equipment Capabilities: Ammunition capable of being fired from a 12-gauge shotgun Manufacturer Product Description: The Model 2581 Super-Sock delivers unprecedented accuracy and consistent terminal impact characteristics at close-in and extended ranges, thanks to the flexible tubular material bag specially developed for this unique less than lethal

23.a
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 16
round. Super-Sock is a safer and more effective round due to its accuracy and consistent transfer of kinetic energy to the target. Unlike traditional flat bags, no "unfolding" is necessary. Super-Sock is correctly deployed as soon as it exits the muzzle. No frisbee or wind surfing effects. No hitting the target folded or sideways. When deployed, super-sock presents a consistent aerodynamic shape every time, delivering consistent and predictable terminal performance. Fits cylinder and improved cylinder 12ga shotguns chambered for 2.75" & 3" cartridges.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: The CTS Super-Sock rounds provide alternative levels of force to overcome resistance when reasonably necessary in accordance with policy and law.

Fiscal Impacts: Approximately $1,055.74 for 165 rounds in 2022. The CTS Super Sock ammunition cost was approximately $5.85 each round.

Annual Maintenance: N/A
Personnel Cost: Approximately $100-300, depending on training needs and cost.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All use of force applications are governed by state law (including Penal Code section 13652) and applicable PPD policies on Use of Force.

Training Required: Officers who have been trained and have passed a qualification course with the munitions may deploy them. Officers receive initial training upon hire and annually thereafter.

Other Notes: None
Pepperball FTC Launcher
Equipment Name: Pepperball FTC Launcher
Quantity Owned/Sought: 2 owned Lifespan: 10 years
Equipment Capabilities: Capable of firing PAVA pepper powder projectile rounds Manufacturer Product Description: The FTC Launcher is a semi-automatic compressed airpowered launcher designed to fire non-lethal pepperball projectiles. Reliable and accurate, it features a hopper that can hold up to 180 rounds, a flexible air source configuration and a compact modular design. The FTC Launcher can help de-escalate and limit the escalation of conflict where effective without the need for lethal force in situations such as, but not limited to, self-destructive subjects, dangerous, and/or combative individuals, riot control and civil unrest incidents, circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained, potentially vicious animals, training exercises, or approved demonstrations.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: The less-than-lethal launchers provide alternative levels of force to overcome resistance when reasonably necessary in accordance with policy and law.

Fiscal Impacts: The less-than-lethal FTC Launchers were purchased in 2021. The cost for an FTC Launcher is currently approximately $591. The cost for 90 Live-X projectile rounds was approximately $322 in 2022.

Annual Maintenance: $100-$200, depending on service needed.

Personnel Cost: Approximately $300, depending on training needs and cost.

23.a
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 17
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable Local, State, and Federal laws governing police use of force. All applicable PPD policies on Use of Force.

Training Required: Officers are required to complete a 2-hour in-house training course with a certified Pepperball instructor prior to deploying the launcher out in the field.

Other Notes: None
Military Equipment Owned and Operated by Outside Agencies:

The Pacifica Police Department may utilize qualifying military equipment owned and/or maintained by outside neighboring agencies (San Bruno PD and Daly City PD SWAT) for law enforcement purposes. The following are examples of those military equipment. Please refer to Daly PD and San Bruno PD’s military equipment report for further information.

Unmanned Aircraft System (Drones)
Equipment Name: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS/Drones)
Quantity Owned/Sought: None (owned by SBPD) Lifespan: Approximately 5 years Equipment Capabilities: Remotely piloted aerial vehicle capable of providing live and recorded video images captured from aerial positions, including images enhanced by Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) and optical zoom lenses.

Manufacturer Product Description: Matrice 210: The DJI Matrice 210 is a powerful, industrial-grade fight platform with world-class agility and speed, two barometers, and redundant IMUs for maximum reliability, and new smart flight features that make capturing complex shots easy. The aircraft’s visual sensors enable enhanced hovering precision even when flying indoors or in environments where GNSS is unavailable. The drone’s new airframe design gives it an IP43 Ingress Protection Rating, in accordance with the global IEC 60529 standard. The M210/M210 RTK’s mechanical design, along with quick release landing gears and mounted folding arms, makes it easy to transport, store, and prepare for flight.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: UAS/Drones may be utilized to enhance the Department’s mission of protecting lives and property when other means and resources are not available or are less effective. Uses may include but are not limited to: search and rescue; suspect apprehension; crime scene documentation; tactical operations; scene security; hazard monitoring, identification and mitigation; response to emergency calls; crisis communications; legally authorized surveillance.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Any use of a UAS will be in strict accordance with constitutional and privacy rights and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The use of the UAS potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to FAA altitude regulations and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure). Operators and observers shall take reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Reasonable precautions can

23.a
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 18
include, for example, deactivating or turning imaging devices away from such areas or persons during UAS operations.

Training Required: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by San Bruno PD.

Other Notes: None
Armored Personnel Carrier (Lenco Bearcat)
Equipment Name: Armored Personnel Carrier (Lenco Bearcat) Quantity Owned/Sought: None (Owned by DCPD SWAT) Lifespan: Varies on Usage Equipment Capabilities: The Lenco Bearcat G1 is a tactical armored vehicle capable of transporting 8- 10 officers and equipment during tactical and recovery operations, offering ballistic protection and other features to enhance the safety of involved personnel during potential high-risk tactical and recovery operations.

Manufacturer Product Description: The Lenco Bearcat G1 is the standard tactical armored vehicle for special operations units within the US Law Enforcement community. Since the early 2000s, agencies such as LAPD, LASD SEB, NYPD ESU, Boston PD and hundreds of Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement agencies have made the Bearcat G1 part of their standard operating procedure. The G1 has excellent on-road driving characteristics and maneuverability in tight urban settings. The large floorplan seats 8 – 10 fully equipped officers with a long list of tactical features only found on the Lenco Bearcat line of armored SWAT vehicles.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: To enhance the safety and tactical advantage of officers and support personnel during potentially dangerous situations or high-risk tactical operations.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: The Daly City Police Department recognizes the use of armored vehicles during law enforcement operations can potentially startle members of the general public or create a sense of fear amongst the community. As such, the use of the armored vehicle is limited to SWAT Team operations or other law-enforcement responses or events that are considered high-risk. Special consideration is given in analyzing the risk factors associated with the intended operation or event with the need for the added protection offered by the armored vehicle. During specific community events, the armored vehicle can be used as a static display when appropriate and when authorized by the SWAT Commander. Drivers shall adhere to all applicable State and Local laws governing emergency vehicle use.

Training Required: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Other Notes: None
Unmanned Ground Vehicles (Avatar Robot)
Equipment Name: Unmanned Ground Vehicles (Avatar Robot) Quantity Owned/Sought: None. Owned by DCPD SWAT Lifespan: Approximately 7-10 years

23.a
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 19
Equipment Capabilities: The Robotex Avatar II is a small robotic vehicle capable of being remotely navigated through a variety of environments to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to the user.

Manufacturer Product Description: The Avatar® II is a compact, lightweight robotic platform that is part of the RoboteX Avatar® Series. Designed from the ground up for portability, expandability, and ease-of-use, the Avatar® II serves as a useful tool for a variety of users.

The Avatar® II can be customized with a variety of plug-and-play accessories. These accessories facilitate use of the robot in a variety of scenarios, including CBRNE, EOD, and personal security settings. Visit www.robotex.com/build-a-robot or contact your Account Manager for more information.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: To enhance the safety of potentially dangerous situations by providing first responders with the ability to capture video and still images of hazardous areas prior to, or in lieu of, sending in personnel.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: The use of unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to all applicable privacy laws and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure).

Training Required: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Other Notes: None
Remington 700 Sniper Rifle
Equipment Name: Bolt-Action Sniper Rifles
Quantity Owned/Sought: None (Owned by DCPD SWAT) Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The Remington 700 Sniper Rifle is a bolt-action, precision-fire weapon system that fires 7.62 x 51mm (.308 caliber) ammunition. It is capable of firing at greater distances and with great accuracy than Department issued patrol rifles. The five rifles owned by theDepartment are outfitted with high-powered adjustable magnification optics for observation and targeting.

Manufacturer Product Description: Remington Model 700: The Remington® Model 700® Bolt- Action Rifle is enhanced to hit targets at long ranges. At the heart of this specialized long-range rifle is the famous Model 700 action that has been proven for reliability and precision accuracy in combat with the U.S. Army's M24 sniper rifle. The Model 700 Long Range rifle comes with a tactical stock made of solid urethane combined with aramid, graphite, and fiberglass. The barreled receiver is bedded with an aluminum block, and the heavy-contoured barrel is free-floated, providing excellent accuracy and minimal shift in zero caused by changes in the environment. The non-reflective stock and exterior metal blend in with a wide range of environments. The 2-position safety at the rear of the action is quick to operate with the thumb and can also be gripped with the forefinger and thumb and moved extra quietly to the fire position. The Remington Model 700 Long Range Bolt-Action Rifle

23.a
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 20
comes drilled and tapped for scope mounts. An extra sling swivel stud on the fore-end provides an attachment point for a bipod.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: This rifle is authorized for use by trained SWAT Sniper Team Operators. SWAT Sniper Team Operators may deploy this rifle in any circumstance where the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Examples of some general guidelines for deploying the rifle may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter. (2) When the officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.
(3) Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.
(4) When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.
(5) When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor. (6) When authorized or requested by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable Local, State, and Federal laws governing police use of force. All applicable Daly City Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms
Training Required: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Other Notes: None
Breaching Apparatuses (Breaching Shotgun)
Equipment Name: Breaching Apparatuses (Breaching Shotgun) Quantity Owned/Sought: None (Owned by DCPD SWAT) Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The Royal Arms Breaching Shotgun is capable of firing 12-gauge shotgun ammunition. It is a compact and modified version of the Remington 870 platform designed for breaching purposes. It is specifically intended to fire frangible compressed copper slugs to breach doorway locking mechanisms while minimizing overpenetration or risk of injury to persons in close proximity to the doorway or lock.

Manufacturer Product Description: Royal Arms Breaching Shotgun starts out with the triedand-true Remington 870 Police Model 12 Ga Shotgun as its base. We then completely modify it with our custom CNC machined parts to be the ultimate Breaching Shotgun. Royal Arms invented the Breachers and Breaching shotguns, why settle for an imitation or knock off when you can buy the best American Made Breaching Shotgun for all Tactical Operators and discerning individuals. Royal Arms Tesar-2 Black Cap Slugs: 425 grain compressed copper slug, frangible. Slug Material: Copper powder. Velocity: 1,525 feet per second. Use:

For metal doors, locks, and hinges. Defeats: Heavy locks, dead-bolts and hinges (solid oak – steel doors).

23.a
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 21
Purpose/Authorized Uses: The breaching shotguns are intended for use as a breaching option during tactical entry into a dwelling or other enclosed space when other breaching options have failed, or when authorized by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable Local, State, and Federal laws governing police use of force. All applicable Daly City Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Training Required: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Other Notes: None
Chemical Agents (Tear-Gas)
Equipment Name: Chemical Agents (Tear Gas)
Quantity Owned/Sought: None (Owned by DCPD SWAT) Lifespan: Varies on storage conditions
Equipment Capabilities: Chemical agents, sometimes referred to as “tear gas” or riot control agents, are less-lethal chemical compounds that temporarily induce discomfort to an individual in the form of one or more of the following: Irritation to the skin, eyes, mouth, throat, and lungs. The goal of which is to gain compliance, dispersal, or direct the movement of one or more individuals.

The Daly City Police Department owns multiple types of chemical agents in various forms, totaling 154 individual units at present. The units are expendable items; therefore, the quantities will vary. Each chemical agent type has different capabilities. The types and manufacturers are as follows:

1. Defense Technologies Spede-Heat CS gas grenade, 81.2g, 20-40 second burn time

2. Defense Technologies Flameless Tri-Chamber CS gas grenade, 20.0g, 20-30 second burn time

3. Combined Tactical Systems Indoor Baffled CS gas grenade, 25.0g, 20-40 second burn time, launchable through outfitted less-lethal shotgun apparatus, requires specific blank 12 gauge launching cartridge manufactured by Combined Tactical Systems

4. Defense Technologies 40mm Liquid Ferret Round, liquid CS projectile dispersed upon impact, 8.0g, launchable though 40mm launcher

5. Defense Technologies Pocket Tactical CS gas grenade, 20.0g, 20-40 second burn time

6. Defense Technologies Maximum Smoke HC (Hexachloroethane) grenade, smoke screen, 1 ½ - 2 minute burn time
Defense Technologies Triple-Chaser, CS gas canister, 90.7g, 20-30 second burn time Manufacturer Product Description: Defense Tech Spede-Heat CS Grenade: The SpedeHeat™ CS Grenade is a high volume, continuous burn it expels its payload in approximately 20-40 seconds. The payload is discharged through four gas ports on top of the canister,

23.a
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 22
three on the side and one on the bottom. This launchable grenade is 6.12 in. by 2.62 in. and holds approximately 2.9 oz. of active agent.

Defense Tech Flameless Tri-Chamber CS Grenade: The design of the Tri-Chamber Flameless CS Grenade allows the contents to burn within an internal can and disperse the agent safely with reduced risk of fire. The grenade is designed primarily for indoor tactical situations to detect and/or dislodge a barricaded subject. This grenade will deliver approximately .70 oz. of agent during its 20-25 seconds burn time. The Tri-Chamber Flameless Grenade can be used in crowd control as well as tactical deployment situations by Law Enforcement and Corrections but was designed with the barricade situation in mind. Its applications in tactical situations are primarily to detect and/or dislodge barricaded subjects. The purpose of the Tri-Chamber Flameless Grenade is to minimize the risks to all parties through pain compliance, temporary discomfort, and/or incapacitation of potentially violent or dangerous subjects. The Tri-Chamber Flameless Grenade provides the option of delivering a pyrotechnic chemical device indoors, maximizing the chemicals’ effectiveness via heat and vaporization, while minimizing or negating the chance of fire to the structure. The Tri-Chamber Flameless Grenade is NOT to be launched utilizing a launching cup.

Combined Tactical Systems Indoor Baffled CS Grenade: Pyrotechnic grenade designed for indoor use delivering a maximum amount of irritant smoke throughout multiple rooms with minimal risk of fire.

Combined Tactical Systems 12 gauge Launching Cartridge: The Model 2600 Launching Cartridge is a 12-gauge cartridge much shorter than standard full-sized 12-gauge cartridges.

Therefore, to prevent weapon malfunctions, each cartridge must be manually loaded into the chamber for each shot.

Effective range is dependent on the launching cup, launcher, and weight of munitions being launched. The baseline for performance of a Model 2600 Launching Cartridge is that it will launch a Model 9230 CS Grenade a minimum of 100 yards (91M), with cylinder bore and 18" bbl.

Defense Technologies 40mm Liquid Ferret Round: The Ferret® 40mm Round is non-burning and suitable for indoor use. Used primarily by tactical teams, it is designed to penetrate barriers, such as windows, hollow core doors, wallboard and thin plywood. Upon impacting the barrier, the nose cone ruptures and instantaneously delivers a small chemical payload inside of a structure or vehicle. In a tactical deployment situation, the 40mm Ferret is primarily used to dislodge barricaded subjects from confined areas. Its purpose is to minimize the risks to all parties through pain compliance, temporary discomfort and/or incapacitation of potentially violent or dangerous subjects.

Defense Technologies Pocket Tactical CS Gas Grenade: The Pocket Tactical CS Grenade is small, and lightweight. The 0.9 oz. of active agent will burn approximately 20-40 seconds.

23.a
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 23
At 4.75 in. by 1.4 inches in size, it easily fits in most tactical pouches. This is a launchable grenade; however, it is normally used as a signaling or covering device. Though this device is slightly over four inches in length, it produces a smoke cloud so fast it appears to be an enveloping screen produced by a full-size tactical grenade.

Defense Technologies Maximum Smoke HC Grenade: The Maximum Smoke Grenade is designed specifically for outdoor use in crowd control situations with a high-volume continuous burn that expels its payload in approximately 30-40 seconds through four gas ports located on the top of the canister. This grenade can be used to conceal tactical movement or to route a crowd. The volume of smoke and agent is vast and obtrusive. This launchable colored smoke grenade is 6.0 in. by 2.35 in. and holds approximately 2.9 oz. of active agent.

Defense Technologies Triple-Chaser CS Gas Canister: The Triple-Chaser® CS consists of three separate canisters pressed together with separating charges between each. When deployed, the canisters separate and land approximately 20 feet apart allowing increased area coverage in a short period of time. This grenade can be hand thrown or launched from a fired delivery system. The grenade is 6.5 in. by 2.7 in. and holds an approximately 3.2 oz. of active agent payload. It has an approximate burn time of 20-30 seconds.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Chemical agents are intended for use as a less-lethal force response option. They can be deployed by trained Department personnel for riot control purposes, during tactical operations involving barricaded suspects, or in other situations where lesser means are reasonably believed to be ineffective or involve substantially more risk to Department personnel.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable Local, State, and Federal laws governing police use of force. All applicable Daly City Police Department Policies on Use of Force.

Training Required: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Other Notes: None
Flashbang Grenades
Equipment Name: Flashbang Grenades
Quantity Owned/Sought: None (Owned by DCPD SWAT) Lifespan: Varies on storage conditions
Equipment Capabilities: The flashbang, sometimes referred to as “stun grenade,” is a diversionary device that delivers a bright flash and loud explosive-type noise when deployed.

This is a non-lethal handheld grenade that does not fragment or produce any shrapnel.

Manufacturer Product Description: Defense Technologies Low Roll 4-gram Distraction Device: The reloadable distraction device unit incorporates a model 7007 type fuse with hex design gun steel body. This is a compact version of the 8933 Low Roll® body Distraction

23.a
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 24
Device and is the newest version of the first reusable non-bursting canister that limits movement and rolling once deployed. The compact Distraction Device fits safely in your hand and packs all the power of the full-size Distraction Device. The 4-Gram Distraction Device® Reload produces a reduced light, and sound output ideal for when the full effects of the 12-gram charge are not desirable.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Diversionary devices are intended for use as a distraction option used during high-risk entries into a dwelling or similar structure by SWAT operators. They can be deployed by trained Department SWAT operators when authorized by the SWAT Commander or in the event of
exigent circumstances.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable Local, State, and Federal laws governing police use of force. All applicable Daly City Police Department Policies on Use of Force.

Training Required: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Other Notes: None
40mm Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions
Equipment Name: 40mm Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions Quantity Owned/Sought: None (Owned by DCPD SWAT) Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The Defense Technology 40mm LMT is a single-shot launcher capable of firing 40mm kinetic energy munitions, also commonly referred to as specialty impact munitions (SIM), which are less-lethal projectiles. The 40mm launcher is also capable of firing 40mm chemical agent munitions, commonly referred to as “tear gas” or CS gas.

Refer to “Tear Gas and Chemical Agents” page for further details on these munitions. The Daly City Department has outfitted the launchers with Trijicon optics for aiming and targeting purposes.

Manufacturer Product Description: Defense Tech 40mm LMT Single Launcher:

Manufactured exclusively for Defense Technology®, the 40LMTS is a tactical single shot launcher that features an expandable ROGERS Super Stoc and an adjustable Integrated Front Grip (IFG) with light rail. The ambidextrous Lateral Sling Mount (LSM) and QD mounting systems allow both a single and two-point sling attachment. The 40LMTS will fire standard 40mm less lethal ammunition, up to 4.8 inches in cartridge length. The Picatinny Rail Mounting System will accept a wide array of enhanced optics/sighting systems.

Defense Tech Exact Impact 40mm Standard Range Sponge Round: The eXact iMpact™ 40 mm Sponge Round is a point-of-aim, point-of-impact direct-fire round. This lightweight, high-speed projectile consists of a plastic body and sponge nose that is spin stabilized via the incorporated rifling collar and the 40 mm launcher’s rifled barrel. The round utilizes smokeless powder as the propellant, and, therefore, have velocities that are extremely consistent. Used for Crowd Control, Patrol, and Tactical Applications.

23.a
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 25
Purpose/Authorized Uses: The 40mm Launchers, kinetic energy munitions, and chemical agent munitions are intended for use as a less-lethal force response option.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable Local, State, and Federal laws governing police use of force. All applicable Daly City Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Training Required: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by DCPD SWAT Other Notes: None
Internal Audit
The Pacifica Police Department is committed to providing information to our community in compliance with Assembly Bill 481. The Police Department personnel conduct various military equipment audits to determine functionality, inventory, and verify proper personnel has assigned equipment. All military equipment operated and maintained in this report were accounted for during this period.

Training Costs
The use of certain items of military equipment and related special tactics are perishable skills that require ongoing training to maintain proficiency. While the Department conducts constant training within its personnel and training unit and specific specialized units, there is significant tactical insight and an enhanced skillset to be gained by participating in external training courses. These courses provide officers with a curriculum and exercises designed to impart knowledge, skills, and enhanced capability. The courses attended by officers can vary from year to year, depending on operational needs. Funding sources for training are funded from the existing police training budget.

Storage Costs
Our current military equipment listed in this report is stored at the police department in the armory. There are no third-party storage costs.

Conclusion
As outlined in this report, the Pacifica Police Department utilizes various but minimal types of military equipment to protect life, prevent crime, and enhance the quality of life for all our community members. In accordance with Assembly Bill 481 and Department Policy 705, the Police Department will be transparent regarding funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by the Police Department. When making decisions regarding how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used, the Pacifica Police Department considers the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

23.a
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) ASSEMBLY BILL 481 MILITARY QUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT 26
Any member of the public can submit a complaint to the Pacifica Police Department in person, telephone, email, etc.). Once the complaint is received, it will be routed for review to the Internal Affairs Unit in accordance with the Pacifica Police Department’s policy and procedures.

Pursuant to California Government Code §7070(d)(7), members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of Military Equipment in this policy by any of the following means:

1. Via email to: [email protected]

2. Via phone call to: (650) 738-7314

3. Via mail sent to: Pacifica Police Department
Attn: Military Equipment Use Coordinator
2075 Coast Highway
Pacifica, CA 94044

The Pacifica Police Department is committed to responding to complaints, concerns and/or questions received through any of the above methods in a timely manner.

23.a
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) Policy
705
Pacifica Police Department
Pacifica PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/06/01, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Pacifica Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 1 Military Equipment
705.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
705.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.

Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

23.b
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Attachment B - Military Equipment Policy #705 (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) Pacifica Police Department
Pacifica PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/06/01, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Pacifica Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 2 705.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Pacifica Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 705.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Pacifica Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
705.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:

See Military Equipment Report on Pacifica Police Departments Transparency page: https:// www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/police/transparency
705.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):

23.b
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Attachment B - Military Equipment Policy #705 (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment) Pacifica Police Department
Pacifica PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/06/01, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Pacifica Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 3 (a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 705.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy. 705.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 705.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

23.b
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Attachment B - Military Equipment Policy #705 (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

23.c
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Attachment C - Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment Ordinance 877-C.S. (05/25/22) (5432 : Ordinance - Militarized Equipment)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/14/2023
1 SUBJECT:

Meeting Minutes Format for City Council, Planning Commission and Other City Committees / Commissions
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to adopt the Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Creation of Administration Policy No. 84 Establishing Format of Action Minutes for City Council, Planning Commission and Other City Committees / Commissions” to transition from the preparation of Semi-Verbatim Minutes to Action Minutes.

STAFF CONTACT:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
SUMMARY:

City staff is continuously seeking opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency of City operations and administration to better serve the community with the City’s limited staffing and financial resources. This practice of continuous improvement includes periodic review of policies, practices, and technology tools that may have not kept pace with local government best practices. One such outdated practice identified by the City Manager and City Clerk, and requested by Mayor Bigstyck at the April 24, 2023, City Council meeting to be reviewed and brought to Council for consideration, is the City’s current practice of semi-verbatim minutes of meetings. The following report provides information about industry best practices for minutes of meetings, comparisons to other cities in the region, the cost and staff resources expended on Pacifica’s current practice, information about video technology that makes semi-verbatim minutes redundant, and other details to support the City Manager’s recommendation to transition to Action Minutes.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

California Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, 54953(c)(2) and 53232.3(d) provide various legal requirements relating to the record of proceedings during a public meeting, often referred to as the “minutes” of meetings. The Government Code does not specify in what form or style the minutes must be as long as the subject of the proceedings and the final actions are recorded.

Relevant Government Code Sections are as follows:
• Government Code 40801: The city clerk shall keep an accurate record of the proceeding of the legislative body and the board of equalization in books bearing appropriate titles and devoted exclusively to such purposes, respectively. The books shall have a comprehensive general index.
24 Packet Pg. 793
Pacifica City Council 2
August 14, 2023
• Government Code 36814: The council shall cause the clerk to keep a correct record of its proceedings. At the request of a member, the city clerk shall enter the ayes and noes in the journal.
• Government Code 54953(c)(2): The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
• Government Code 53232.3(d): Members of a legislative body shall provide brief reports on meetings attended at the expense of the local agency at the next regular meeting of the legislative body.

Minutes can be prepared in several different formats; in general, there are four types of Minutes formats: Action, Summary, Semi-Verbatim or Verbatim.

Action:

Include actions of the City Council / Committee / Commission; requires very little, if any, narrative and only identifies the motion/second and vote in the record.

Summary:

Provide information as outlined in Action Minutes, but adds limited City Council and staff comments, as well as a list of the members of the public who commented on an issue.

Provides summary of City Council / Committee / Commission main points in discussion with emphasis on the body’s thought process in making the decision if and only if they are relevant to the decision. Not intended to reflect individual members’ thought process.

Semi-Verbatim:

Provide information as outlined in Action and Summary Minutes, and may include not only detail of each agenda item listed, but also full discussion.

Verbatim:

Provides information as outlined in Action but also all words spoken during meeting.

Draft minutes are reviewed and approved by the City Council before they are considered final.

Once approved, the minutes become the official record of what took place at the meeting.

Current Practice:

Presently, for City Council and Planning Commission meetings, the City of Pacifica uses SemiVerbatim Minutes providing a very detailed account of the meeting, major points, speaker comments (both members of the body and members of the public) and flow of discussion. The meeting minutes are lengthy and are cost and labor intensive to prepare. When Council reviews the draft minutes, corrections to details of the content are made on occasion, such as comments or opinions of individual members of the body or members of the public, that are not necessarily germane to the final decision and/or action of the Council. Extremely detailed minutes are not succinct and are therefore difficult to review as the record of the final decision and action by the body, costing the reader more time and possible ambiguity and misdirection in an attempt to ascertain the final decisions made.

The City of Pacifica does not currently have a policy to address the specific type of minutes to prepare for City Council, Planning Commission and other City Committees / Commissions.

Cost and Labor-Impact of Semi-Verbatim Minutes Style:
24 Packet Pg. 794
Pacifica City Council 3
August 14, 2023
The City of Pacifica employs a part-time meeting transcriptionist to review City Council and Planning Commission meeting audio/video recordings to produce a draft set of minutes in SemiVerbatim Minutes format. On average, the transcriptionist typically spends approximately 20 hours per meeting to prepare draft minutes. In Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the City spent over $10,000 for the transcriptionist to produce Semi-Verbatim Minutes for 31 City Council meetings and over $3,000 for 14 Planning Commission meetings. In addition to the transcriptionist time, the City Clerk and/or Deputy City Clerk spends an additional 3 - 4 hours reviewing the draft produced by the transcriptionist in conjunction with the audio/video recording of the meeting to correct any errors or inaccuracies, fill in any highlighted portions that the transcriptionist could not decipher from the audio recording, and make adjustments to grammar and phrasing. The City Attorney’s Office may also be asked to review the minutes from time to time to confirm accuracy for certain public hearings. Additional time is necessary if the Council subsequently requests edits or corrections to the draft minutes when provided for approval on a subsequent agenda. In addition to the staff time and cost spent on preparation of Semi-Verbatim Minutes that could be focused on other priorities, keeping Semi-Verbatim Minutes for meetings is contrary to industry best practices as recommended by the City Clerk’s Association of California (CCAC), which recommends utilizing more succinct Action Minutes except in certain circumstances. The CCAC’s recommendation is discussed further below.

Recommended Practice:

The CCAC recommends Action Minutes or Summary Minutes, where they are described as brief summary minutes. The CCAC has issued “Guidelines for Preparing Minutes for Governmental Agencies” (Attachment B). The CCAC prepared the guidelines as a tool for government agencies to prepare minutes that are efficient, succinct, cost-effective for staff to prepare and more appropriately aligned with the intent of the Government Code. The purpose of minutes shall be for the primary purpose of memorializing decisions made by the legislative body. The guidelines state that any component of the minutes that does not serve this primary purpose should be minimized or eliminated, including any comments made by individual body members and members of the public.

Action Minutes enhance clarity, as they focus on accurately and succinctly reflecting the final decisions of the legislative body. Transitioning from Semi-Verbatim to Action Minutes removes the ambiguity and misdirection that is unintentionally created when the flow of conversation is included in the written record, as the goal is to appropriately place emphasis on the collective legislative body’s decision-making. Action Minutes make it possible to easily review the minute document for what actions were taken and decisions made without these important points being lost in extensive content. They also avoid possible objections of what was or wasn’t included in the minutes or how comments were interpreted and discussions paraphrased or summarized.

Most cities now use Action Minutes as an established best-practice as recommended by the CCAC. The City of Pacifica’s current City Council minutes format is not in line with this guidance or current best-practices in the industry.

Cities that do not currently use Action Minutes are increasingly transitioning to Action Minutes formats. Some reasons for this transition include: (1) providing Semi-Verbatim Minutes requires significantly more City resourcesand (2) modern information technologies make meetings more accessible in real-time cable and internet broadcasts as well as digital copies of audio/video recordings of meetings.

Specifically, for the City of Pacifica, Pacific Coast Television broadcasts all regular meetings and many special meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission via cable and internet live-stream and posts video recordings of these meetings on the internet to YouTube for public 24 Packet Pg. 795
Pacifica City Council 4
August 14, 2023
reference. While the City is not the agency of record for these recordings and the recordings do not serve as the official record of the meetings as intended by the Government Code, they are easily and readily publicly accessible. Meetings from 2013 to present are available to access via YouTube and the public can watch the meeting for interest in specific comments and detailed discussions of items.

The Minutes of the meeting will serve as the official record of the meeting as intended by the Government Code and for the primary purpose of documenting the final actions and decisions taken by the legislative body.

Minutes of Other City Committees / Commissions:

The CCAC Guidelines are also applicable to City Committees and Commissions subject to the Brown Act. It is acknowledged that many City Committees / Commissions take few legislative actions and are primarily advisory in nature. At a maximum, Summary Minutes may include key points of final reports or determinations, and all comments shall be attributable to the entire body and not to individual members. Summary Minutes shall serve to clarify the final decisions made by the body and who is expected to execute the decisions, but shall not serve as a substitute for all action points or task lists.

Minutes Formats of Other Cities in San Mateo County:

Staff sampled City Council minutes from the 20 cities in San Mateo County and found that 12 cities regularly produced Action Minutes and 7 cities produced Summary Minutes. The average total pages in meeting minutes produced by other San Mateo County cities was around 5 pages. Where Summary Minutes were prepared for some meetings that included Public Hearings or Study Sessions, those meeting minutes typically did not exceed around 8 pages.

This is in contrast to the City of Pacifica’s Semi-Verbatim Minutes that average around 27 pages and often exceed 30 pages in length.

Attachments to this staff report provide samples of Minutes from other San Mateo County cities that illustrate Action Minutes with some providing Summary consistent with the policy being proposed for the City of Pacifica. The summary below provides a few additional observations and highlights to provide additional context related to the samples of Minutes.

Attachment D - Sample Minutes from City of Half Moon Bay (Action): Total length of minutes is 4 pages. The meeting convened at 7:00pm and adjourned at 11:25pm, for a total duration of 4 hours, 25 minutes and included Public Hearing for the introduction of a proposed Building Electrification Ordinance, included a lengthy discussion, followed by the Council action to continue the hearing to a future meeting.

Attachment E - Sample Minutes from Town of Portola Valley (Action): Total length of minutes is 3 pages. The meeting convened at 7:00pm and adjourned at 1:28am, for a total duration of 6 hours, 28 minutes and included a lengthy discussion on the Review of the Draft Housing Element with a significant number of members of the public for public comment, culminating in the Town Council providing direction to staff, as summarized in the Minutes with a majority consensus. The summarized direction is clear, concise and reflects the direction made by the body after having a full discussion and public comment period as opposed to including a lengthy discussion of individual thoughts and opinions that may or may not be germane to the final direction. 24 Packet Pg. 796
Pacifica City Council 5
August 14, 2023
Attachment F - Sample Minutes from City of San Mateo (Action with Summary): Total length of minutes is 6 pages. The meeting convened at 7:00pm and adjourned at 10:13pm, for a total duration of 3 hours, 13 minutes. This meeting included an agenda item for discussion of the General Plan Update - Land Use Map. Public comments were briefly summarized.

The minutes focus on the nature of questions and concerns raised by the body during discussion and information provided to address the topic pertinent to the discussion and ultimate action by the Council, as opposed to attributing specific questions and opinions to individual members in lengthy detail. The Action taken is clearly stated in the motion with a specific amendment and clearly provides the vote with one member in opposition. The portion of minutes for other agenda items focus in documenting the final action and vote.

Attachment G - Sample Minutes from City of Brisbane (Action with Summary): Total length of minutes is 4 pages. The Special meeting convened at 7:33pm and adjourned at 8:08pm, for a total duration of 35 minutes. The meeting focused on agenda items to place measures on the ballot for an upcoming election. The minutes focus on information provided in the discussion in response to questions and discussion raised by Council, amendments to the action proposed in the agenda, and the final action taken by Council with vote. While individual members are attributed to some statements and questions, the minutes focus on the portions of the discussion that are germane to the final action.

Given the recommendations from CCAC and the practice of other cities in San Mateo County, the City Manager is recommending that the City transition to utilizing more succinct Action Minutes for City Council and Planning Commission proceedings with the occasional use of Summary Minutes for some instances where public hearings are held or where no official actions are taken. For other Committees / Commissions, Summary Minutes are recommended.

The proposed Resolution and Administrative Policy No. 84 (Attachment / Exhibit A) establishes that the City of Pacifica will adopt the practice of preparing Action Minutes as the official format of meeting minutes and provides for criteria and guidance for the appropriate use of Summary Minutes. This proposed Administrative Policy No. 84 conforms to the CCAC Guidelines, industry best practice and the format of minutes currently used by most cities across San Mateo County and the State.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Alternatives to the recommended action may include:
(1) Do not adopt the proposed Resolution / Policy and direct staff to maintain the current practice of preparing Semi-Verbatim Minutes, or
(2) Provide direction to staff clarifying the desired format of minutes to prepare for City Council, Planning Commission and City Committees / Commissions.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
24 Packet Pg. 797
Pacifica City Council 6
August 14, 2023
Moving toward Action Minutes or Summary Minutes comports with the CCAC Best Practices / Guidelines for Preparing Minutes, cost consciousness, as well as the City Council Goal to “Enhance Organizational and Fiscal Stability”.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Transitioning from Semi-Verbatim to Action Minutes would greatly reduce the staff time and costs required to prepare minutes. Savings in excess of $10,000 annually may be realized by eliminating the need for part-time transcription services for the purpose of preparing draft SemiVerbatim Minutes. Transitioning to Action Minutes would allow the City to redistribute limited staff resources to other priorities.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Proposed Administrative Policy No. 84 - Minutes Format (PDF) Attachment B: City Clerks Association of California Guidelines for Preparing Minutes (PDF) Attachment C: Summary of Minutes Formats for SMC Cities (PDF) Attachment D: Sample Minutes from City of Half Moon Bay (PDF) Attachment E: Sample Minutes from Town of Portola Valley (PDF) Attachment F: Sample Minutes from City of San Mateo (PDF) Attachment G: Sample Minutes from City of Brisbane (PDF) 24 Packet Pg. 798
Pacifica City Council 7
August 14, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING CREATION OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY NO. 84 ESTABLISHING FORMAT OF ACTION

MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND OTHER CITY

COMMITTEES / COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica City Council, Planning Commission and several Committees / Commissions currently use Semi-Verbatim Minutes; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 36814 and 40801 state that the City Clerk shall maintain a journal of proceedings or minutes of City Council meetings but does not specify the form or style of minutes; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerks Association of California has issued “Guidelines for Preparing Minutes for Governmental Agencies” as a tool for government agencies to prepare action style or brief summary style minutes that are efficient, succinct, cost-effective for staff to prepare and aligned with the intent of the Government Code for the purpose of memorializing decisions made by the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerks Association of California advises that Action Minutes or brief Summary Minutes are appropriate styles and verbatim style minutes should not be used; and WHEREAS, Action Minutes succinctly show actions taken, identify individuals who participated in discussions, and record the final decisions / actions including the vote of the members of the body in a format aligned with the intent of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, establishing a policy of preparing Action Minutes for legislative body proceedings (City Council and Planning Commission) with the occasional use of Summary Minutes for some instances where public hearings are held or where no official actions are taken provides a more cost-effective form maintaining the official record of City Council, Planning Commission and City Committee / Commission proceedings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize establishing Administrative Policy No. 84 “Minutes Format for City Council, Planning Commission, City Committee & Commission Meetings” attached hereto as Exhibit A and adopt the use of Action Minutes as the official format meeting minutes of the City of Pacifica. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 14th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:
24 Packet Pg. 799
Pacifica City Council 8
August 14, 2023
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 24 Packet Pg. 800
1 Administrative Policy No. 84

CITY OF PACIFICA

ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
No.
84 (NEW)

MINUTES FORMAT FOR CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING

COMMISSION, CITY COMMITTEE & COMMISSION MEETINGS
DATE ISSUED:
mm/dd/yyyy
PURPOSE:

The purpose of this policy is to establish consistent criteria, procedures and format for the preparation of the minutes for City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings and meetings of City Committees and Commissions subject to the Brown Act (collectively referred to as “Council/Committee/Commission”) and adopt the use of Action Minutes as the official format of minutes pursuant to the criteria detailed in this policy.

Meeting minutes should be prepared in a manner consistent with the intent of Government Code Sections 40801, 36814, 54953(c)(2) and 53232.3(d). Minutes shall be prepared for all Council/Committee/Commission meetings subject to the Brown Act to accurately reflect the actions that the legislative body took during the meeting.

POLICY:

1. Action Minutes
Minutes shall be recorded in the style of Action Minutes for the purpose of reflecting what action was taken by the Council/Committee/Commission at meetings and require very little, if any, narrative except as discussed in Section 2 below, and only identifies the motion/second and the outcome of the vote. Each set of Action Minutes shall include:
a. Name of the Council/Committee/Commission, date, time, and place of the meeting; b. Names of the members present and absent;
c. Any identified conflicts of interest made by any Council/Committee/Commission member; d. Brief description, or title, of the items discussed and the order that the discussion took place;
e. A listing of all people who spoke to an item;
f. All motions made by the Council/Committee/Commission, including who made the motion, who seconded the motion, and the vote recording ayes, noes, abstentions (if applicable), and absences (if applicable);
g. All actions taken, including consensus;

24.a
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Attachment A: Proposed Administrative Policy No. 84 - Minutes Format [Revision 2] (5430 : Resolution - Meeting Minutes Format 2 Administrative Policy No. 84
h. For informal consensus, it is appropriate to note the dissension of one or more members by name and, at maximum, include a brief reason for dissent (e.g. “Councilmember Smith dissented citing budgetary concerns.”)
i. On all Oral Communications or Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda, the name of the person addressing the body, and a brief description or statement of the topic; j. Time of Adjournment.

2. Summary Minutes
Summary Minutes may be prepared in place of Action Minutes in the following circumstances:
• Public Hearings
• Members’ Reports on Meetings Attended at the Expense of the Local Agency or on Intergovernmental Agencies
• Brief Description of Members’ Attendance at Community Events • Ceremonial Presentations
• Study / Work Sessions
• Items Where no Formal Action / Decision is Made
• To Clarify Direction of the Body
• To Make Note of a Dissenting Vote
Summary Minutes provide information as outlined in Action Minutes, but add limited Council/Committee/Commission and staff comments, as well as noting a summary of the members of public in support/opposition to an issue. Summary Minutes may include, but are not limited to, the following circumstances:
a. Limited Council/Committee/Commission and staff comments that reflect or clarify the conclusion or direction of the body and not a full discussion or detailed discussion of the members or participants. Comments should not attribute views to individual persons, but should reflect positions taken by the whole body and be written in passive, impersonal voice (e.g. “During discussion, it was clarified…”, “It was suggested that…”, “It was questioned whether…”, “It was generally felt that…”).
b. Comments that may be attributed to individual Council/Committee/Commission members / persons under limited circumstances:
i. Individual Council/Committee/Commission member’s reports pursuant to Government Code Section 53232.3(d) to identify the type of meeting attended at the expense of the local agency and the subject matter.
ii. Individual Council/Committee/Commission member’s reports on intergovernmental agencies to include the type of meeting, at minimum, and brief subject matter, at maximum.
iii. For public testimony provided during public hearings, the speaker’s name (if provided) and brief summary position of the speaker (i.e. supported or opposed). iv. For informal consensus, it is appropriate to note the dissention of one or more Council/Committee/Commission members by name and, at maximum, include a brief reason for dissent (e.g. “Councilmember Smith dissented citing budgetary concerns.”)

24.a
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Attachment A: Proposed Administrative Policy No. 84 - Minutes Format [Revision 2] (5430 : Resolution - Meeting Minutes Format 3 Administrative Policy No. 84
c. Limited Council/Committee/Commission, staff comments and public testimony as described in 2a and 2b(iii) for Public Hearings.
d. For ceremonial presentations (e.g. proclamations) and reports on social and community events, at a minimum Summary Minutes should identify the presenter and that presentations were made / reports were given and, at maximum, report only the subject matter of the presentation or report / event.
e. For Study or Work Session meetings Summary Minutes may include key points of the final reports or determinations and comments should be attributable to the entire body and not to individual members. Summary Minutes shall serve to clarify the final decisions made by the body and who is expected to execute the decisions, but shall not serve as a substitute for all action points or task lists.

3. Preparation of Minutes
a. The City Clerk is responsible for the preparation of the minutes for each City Council meeting and shall determine whether to prepare Action Minutes and Summary Minutes in accordance with this Policy.
b. The Planning Director is responsible for the preparation of the minutes for each Planning Commission Meeting and shall determine whether to prepare Action Minutes and Summary Minutes in accordance with this Policy.
c. The designated City Staff Liaison to each City Commission or Committee is responsible for the preparation of the minutes for that City Commission or Committee meeting and shall determine whether to prepare Action Minutes and Summary Minutes in accordance with this Policy.

4. Approval of Minutes
a. The City Clerk (or City Staff Liaison for Committees/Commissions) shall place the proposed Minutes, for one or more prior meetings, on an agenda of a subsequent meeting for approval by the City Council or Committee or Commission, whichever the case may be. b. A Councilmember, Committee or Commission member has the right to recommend corrections to the proposed Minutes at the meeting where the proposed Minutes are on the agenda for approval for the purpose of better describing the action that was taken by the legislative body.
c. Once approved, the prepared Minutes of the meeting become part of the official record of the meeting and are entered into the City archives as such.

24.a
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Attachment A: Proposed Administrative Policy No. 84 - Minutes Format [Revision 2] (5430 : Resolution - Meeting Minutes Format 9/18/2015

CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA

GUIDELINES FOR

PREPARING MINUTES FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES

PURPOSE
The City Clerks Association of California issues these guidelines as a tool for government agencies to transition to minutes styles that are efficient, succinct, cost-effective for staff to prepare, and more appropriately aligned with the intent of the Government Code.

FINDINGS
• Legislative bodies must act, and must be seen to act, within the laws of the State of California and local charters, if applicable. Being seen to act within the law is important, because the legislative body’s decisions may be subject to external scrutiny by the public, auditors, or judicial inquiry.

Minutes testify that the correct procedures for decision-making were followed. • Legislative body minutes shall be prepared in a manner consistent with the intent of the Government Code. Relevant Government Codes are as follows:

Government Code 40801. The city clerk shall keep an accurate record of the proceeding of the legislative body and the board of equalization in books bearing appropriate titles and devoted exclusively to such purposes, respectively. The books shall have a comprehensive general index.
Government Code 36814. The council shall cause the clerk to keep a correct record of its proceedings. At the request of a member, the city clerk shall enter the ayes and noes in the journal.
Government Code 54953(c)(2). The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
Government Code 53232.3(d). Members of a legislative body shall provide brief reports on meetings attended at the expense of the local agency at the next regular meeting of the legislative body. • All components of minutes shall be for the primary purpose of memorializing decisions made by the legislative body. Any minute component that does not serve this primary purpose should be minimized or eliminated; this includes comments made by individual body members and members of the public.

GUIDELINES
• Minutes should provide a record of a) when and where a meeting took place, and who was present (including member absences, late arrivals, departures, adjournment time); b) type of meeting (Regular/Special/Adjourned Regular); c) what was considered; d) what was decided; and e) agreed upon follow-up action. Pursuant to Government Code 54953(c)(2), minutes shall report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action. • Appropriate styles are action minutes or brief summary minutes. Verbatim style minutes should not be used, because verbatim or lengthy summary minutes do not serve the intent of the Government Code, which is to record the proceedings of the legislative body. • Action minutes merely record final decisions made.

24.b
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Attachment B: City Clerks Association of California Guidelines for Preparing Minutes (5430 : Resolution - Meeting Minutes Format